NewSpace Troll Tactics: A Viewer's Guide (Part 2)

By Jason Rhian, on March 12th, 2013

Image Credit: Whynne

Yesterday we posted the first part in a series that details the behavior of supporters of the so-called “NewSpace” movement. These actions, contrary to the beliefs of the movement’s supporters, are self-destructive and have begun to cause those that supported NewSpace to turn against it. What follows is an opinion-based article detailing some of the tactics these people employ.

Redefining What Is “Is”: One of the NewSpace trolls that frequents AmericaSpace loves to use this particular tactic. During his 2008 visit to Florida’s Space Coast, then-candidate Obama promised to support NASA’s ambitions to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The good people who make the dream of space flight a reality instantly recognized those words as the mantra of the Constellation Program. This particular troll denies that the president made the comment and has demanded that we should all learn to parse words; if we had done so, we would realize the error of our ways (silly us).

In short, when things don’t go their way, as in the case of the loss of one of the Merlin engines on the Falcon 9 during the CRS-1 mission, they will deny that the mission was anything other than a complete success. Pay no attention to the flaming wreckage hurtling out of the back end! They didn’t place those Orbcomm satellites into a useless orbit! It was all part of their master plan! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

This person also attempted to pad NewSpace’s near-empty resume by claiming that United Launch Alliance is actually a NewSpace company. This would be a funny statement if it weren’t so sad. United Launch Alliance exists because of an arrangement that took place back in the late ’90s. The company is comprised of none other than Boeing and Lockheed-Martin—the very bedrock of what NewSpacers derisively call “OldSpace.” I’ve spoken with representatives from the company and they, despite his assertions, don’t view themselves as being NewSpace.

The reason for this tactic is one that any employer will recognize. If you want to promote yourself and you have no experience, you pad your resume. NewSpace, to date, has accomplished precious little. SpaceX has created a euphoric bubble of emotion—one that no other company has yet been able to match. While testing equipment and issuing a never-ending stream of press releases, MOUs, and PowerPoints might impress the uninitiated, those within the industry know that the proof is in the pudding. Until you’re completing missions, you haven’t done anything noteworthy. Folks that are using this tactic are desperately tried to latch onto United Launch Alliance’s successes, to provide NewSpace with what it currently lacks: experience. This is NewSpace.

Bait & Switch: In our last op-ed, entitled “NewSpacers Need to Stop Hating,” we asked why NewSpace fans were biting the hand that funds them (by insulting NASA) and how they thought this behavior would benefit them when NewSpace loses a crewed vehicle. A sensible person would think that this topic would receive numerous responses, if only to deny the issues raised. Not so much. Simply put, NewSpacers can’t excuse their troll behavior. Instead, all they are left with is to attempt to change the subject. This is precisely what they did. Another commentor ignored the questions entirely (in fact, it appeared he didn’t even bother to read the op-ed before going on his rant). He posted the following:

“It would have been nice if you’d addressed any of my substantive points. How is space going to get ‘opened up’ when a space station costs $100 billion?”

Here’s the problem. Nowhere in the op-ed itself or in any of my comments is this topic ever mentioned (nor, to the best of my knowledge, have I ever, or in this trolls case “evuh,” stated this). Moreover, rather than answer for his and his community’s troll behavior, this individual tried to make me answer the off-topic complaints he lodged. A desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject. My response was as follows:

“ … you completely miss the point of this Op-Ed I never, in any shape form or fashion, did I pen it to detail how space would be ‘opened up’ by the ISS. You totally ignore what the Op-Ed is about &, as I said NewSpacers would, change the subject to something (anything) else.
This article is not an opportunity for NewSpacers to present real or perceived slights for me to address. It’s an opportunity to explain your compatriot’s horrid behavior. Why are you biting the hand that funds you? Do you honestly think your terrible behavior will gain you sympathy or compassion when the first crew flying on a Dragon, Dream Chaser or Lynx is lost?
It’d have been nice if YOU’D addressed any of these points. But no, typically, you merely attempt to change the subject. … I don’t know you either – but when someone changes the subject? It means they know they cannot excuse their actions. Thanks (again) for proving the points raised in the Op-Ed as correct.”

What this person has done, instead of addressing the problems that the NewSpace community suffers from, is to attempt to turn the discussion into something other than what it is. He does this because he knows he can’t excuse what NewSpace trolls have been doing. He then acts as if it is I that has explaining to do, when the fact is it’s quite the other way around.

This tactic will usually be employed when these people are caught with their pants down. If they don’t have their facts straight or an explanation, then they will try to turn the conversation away from where it’s headed. To attempt to regain some respect they will almost invariably make aspects of this “new” conversation about the person that is forcing them to address issues they want to avoid. This is NewSpace.

Bringing Light to the Benighted Heathens: NewSpace trolls generally get their information from a small handful of sources, and all of them agree with their personal world view. They shun information that points to information counter to their beliefs. They generally only visit other websites to explain to those commenting on these sites how inferior they are. Posts of this nature usually don’t have anything of substance in them and are filled with condescending comments.

There’s no need to worry about pesky things like facts when you can just enter a conversation and talk down to everyone like they’re a pack of dolts. Never mind the fact that your experience folder is empty and the people you’re talking to have been doing this for decades. When you do respond to them? They will act like you’re some backward fool, mainly because you have the nerve to counter their “points” and not just mirror everything they say.

This tactic is harder to quantify. Essentially it is behavior where a NewSpace troll attempts to lord their brilliance over your poor empty head. This is also one of the funnier things that NewSpace trolls attempt. Because, as mentioned, they have the tendency to pull information from a very limited variety of sources (and some of those include NewSpace company press releases). Essentially? When dealing with the knowledge some of these people are yielding, you’re dealing with people who are suffering from intellectual inbreeding. And yet these are the people talking down to others. …

Now, one could argue that this is just indicative of the movement’s immature fan base. Not so much. When we posted our “NewSpace Fans Need to Stop Hating” op-ed, a lobbyist for the movement reached out to me. The first thing this person did was express how he disliked AmericaSpace’s owner. Things went downhill from there.

Remember, this person didn’t know me—at all. His next email, penned to silence unflattering information exposed about a NewSpace proponent, had the headline: “Is Hillhouse on drugs?” Again, keep in mind this was only the second time that this person had ever said anything to me. Here is some of the other colorful language he chose to use:

“Or is he just an idiot who slanders patriots … Seriously. Yank his leash.”

It was at this point I got confused. My first reaction was to wonder just who this NewSpace troll thought he was. Thankfully, he made sure to clear up the issue by expressing just how ignorant he was. He thought that Mr. Hillhouse was my employee—it’s the other way around. This troll didn’t bother to do his homework, and then went on a spittle-flinging rant where he thought he could tell me what to do. He tried to downplay documents that place the “patriot” in a very bad light. In short, they got caught looking bad, and this individual was demanding that we cover up for them. Even worse? He actually tried to compare a sterile news piece to the nasty behavior these trolls display on a routine basis. I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to think you can send someone an email with verbiage in it like that and receive any kind of positive response? Another thing you will see is what I’ve come to call “The God Declaration.” In this case the troll makes a statement as if Zeus were giving all the heathens an edict, something like: “Defund SLS/Orion now.” This is NewSpace.

Cloning: When one is determining the overall success of what NewSpace companies have accomplished, it is important to use actual accomplishments as your guide. You do this by looking at the companies that have completed large goals, such as winning large contests, completing major contracts, or flying actual missions. If you do this, however, it becomes readily apparent that when it comes to NewSpace, there is not much there.

Using this method of measuring success takes out all of the extraneous “fluff.” You ignore the tests, the promises, the signed MOUs, PowerPoints, and so on. To date? The number of major accomplishments that NewSpace has to brag about is small. Scaled Composites won the Ansari X-PRIZE, Bigelow Aerospace has launched two inflatable space station modules, and SpaceX has completed NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract and moved on to delivering supplies to the International Space Station. The only other NewSpace firm that has had similar successes is Orbital Sciences Corporation.

For longtime readers, you can probably remember when SpaceX was regarded very critically on this website. That is no longer the case. Why is this? Simple: they’ve done something, they’re flying missions. We’ve seen too many fly-by-night NewSpace companies come and go to pander to them until they follow suit and begin achieving objectives.

So, you’re a NewSpace troll and you want to make others believe as you do, despite this lack of experience. What do you do? Simple: you pull a con that is every bit impressive as the one that the tailor did in the “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

This troll tactic is all about generalities. You don’t really deal with specifics about companies who, let’s face it, haven’t done much of anything yet. You simply mention NewSpace as a whole and talk about how you’re sending spacecraft to the ISS and will be ferrying the “average Joe” into sub-orbit, sometime … soon. The cloning aspect to this comes into play when these individuals are pressed on facts. More likely than not they will attempt to paint all NewSpace companies with the SpaceX brush. Essentially, just by the merit of these companies being NewSpace, they will be every bit as successful as SpaceX. Yeah, not so much.

One person referred to the movement’s romanticized view of what is taking place as follows: “These guys haven’t gone in to space much. The people that follow them are all, ‘deep sighs and starry skies’ – wait that’s wrong, it’s more like deep sighs and empty skies. … ”

For those unaware of NewSpace history, calling it NewSpace 2.0 is not an unfair assessment. For those that think these companies can’t do any wrong, they’re willfully ignoring The Rotary Rocket Company, Rocketplane Kistler, SpaceDev, and numerous others. Essentially, “cloning” is an attempt to make the exception the rule. This is NewSpace.

Tune into AmericaSpace tomorrow for the next installment of this op-ed series chronicling the antics of NewSpace supporters.

128 comments to NewSpace Troll Tactics: A Viewer’s Guide (Part 2)

Conrad,
These are the people we’re told we should hand the keys over to. So, respectfully, yes. Think about this, in one of these segments – it’s shown how NewSpace employs these tactics – to cover up the movement’s failings. This highlights a mentality that is immature, dangerous and in the end self-destructive. Ignoring the problem means it will get worse – not better.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Ouch….alot of emotion here….I just want to go to Mars…me personally. Only SpaceX has a plan …sort of…kinda ….I looked at the Russian meterior and realized actually we have NOSPACE….NO PLAN…NO LEADERSHIP to prevent the BIG ONE from wiping us out…

Tracy,
Yes, after years of watching NASA dole out cash to these companies, some of which have gone bankrupt, & seeing commercial crew, commercial cargo & on & on started by the agency – only to have the supporters of this movement employ the tactics described in this series? There is a lot of emotion. These people have displayed some pretty sickening tactics & they need to be called out.
We’re with you, let’s go to Mars (heck even the Moon or an asteroid). The comments we’ve received from certain NewSpacers suggest we should scrap all exploration efforts – and give the funding to their LEO efforts – so we can learn to “live & work” in space. Which we have been doing for the past 40+ years. In short, they’re willing to do anything to keep the cash flowing to the specific companies they support. It’s sickening, made all the worse by the antics described in this series.
I penned this, so when trolls crop up on our site – I don’t have to waste any more time on them.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Um, Jason, RpK is shorthand for Rocketplane Kistler. RpK is the one that received $32.1M from the COTS program, which I pointed out earlier.

So pretty much the only “NewSpace” failure you can point to is RpK’s participation in the COTS program, which by the way showed why the COTS approach is so cost effective (NASA kicked RpK off the contract for non-performance).

Wow, a pretty thin justification.

“I wrote this opinion piece about NewSpace behavior – not a dissertation on failed space projects. Not sure where you got that idea from.”

Because I wanted to know why you dislike “NewSpace” so much, or at least “NewSpace” supporters. And one measure of that, according to you, is how much has been wasted by “NewSpace”.

Of course there are two kinds of waste:

1. Private funds
2. Government funds

Who cares what people do with their own money?

Did you lose money when Rotary Rocket went out of business? Did they hurt your feelings because they didn’t make it? Me personally, I was supportive of what they were doing, but not everyone makes it in business, so I didn’t take it personally when they folded.

So really the only question is when is the taxpayer losing out, because that’s MY money? And that is why I pointed out that the government is far more inefficient with money than any “NewSpace” conspiracies you have been able to highlight.

And again, although “value” doesn’t seem to be important to you, that is the measure I use to decide if I want to support something. And right now, the companies you have identified as “NewSpace” are providing a lot of value. If that bothers you, so be it, but because they offer value they will continue to win government and commercial contracts – better get used to it.

The strength of Newspace is the strength of the free market. The ones that screw up commercially are eliminated. SpaceX will also be eliminated on the commercial side if they make too many mistakes, just as the ones you named were. If SpaceX fails to perform, with things like massive overruns and still keeps getting government contracts, then they will become the type we dislike. There is a long list of companies that didn’t perform commercially and were therefore eliminated.

The complaint that many of us Newspacers share is that bad programs have relatively little downside to companies that are sufficiently lobbied in. There is little visible downside to NASA for the various programs that were canceled before flight but after spending large sums. Venturestar and X34 for example.

John,
You’re mistaken. You argue the topics, you talk about the points. You don’t attack, insult, try to distract from points & communicate. Why would we consider you a troll? You should probably actually read the points raised in this series before jumping to conclusions.
We’re well aware of NewSpacers problems with NASA. To be honest? Having experience with the agency – many of them are valid. However, the people that are described in this series, haven’t managed to put the past behind them & are still acting as if NASA is in their way. They haven’t changed their attitudes – despite the fact that NASA now views them as an asset. That’s the problem we’re addressing. We are terribly sorry that some wish we wouldn’t bring these problems to light, to cover for the movement – we won’t.
Again, you talked about the points without talking at, down to or attacking us – that’s not the actions of a troll – review the tactics & tell us that isn’t (to use the word of a troll) some slimy behavior.
Sincerely & with thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Jason…the media, all media is biased and as along as humans are single decision makers this will continue….There will always be trolls, haters, loud mouths. Etc.

It does not matter what the market is as there will always be new players coming into the market looking to provide a cheaper, better and quicker alternative…While you are seeing this in the Space Market first hand, globally we are all witnessing this in the energy markets and chaos that is being created…Soon the health care industry will be impacted…

We have no choice but to move forward with Newspace approaches. NASA will always have a role….But it would appear that space technology has matured to a point that the private sector can provide a number of these services and what should next be expected is that the cost should be dropping rapidly and that government funding will soon dry up as the market determines who gets funding…

“This particular troll denies that the president made the comment and has demanded that we should all learn to parse words; if we had done so, we would realize the error of our ways (silly us).”

and

“Pay no attention to the flaming wreckage hurtling out of the back end! They didn’t place those Orbcomm satellites into a useless orbit!”

Parsing words is one thing, but what you just stated is just plain wrong. The Falcon 9 fairing that broke off after the engine shutdown wasn’t “flaming”, and there was only one Orbcomm prototype satellite onboard that was put into a too-low orbit, not more than one (i.e. “many”).

So how should we treat what YOU just said? Assume the emotion of the moment made you overstate the situation, or call you a troll?

“NewSpace trolls generally get their information from a small handful of sources, and all of them agree with their personal world view.”

I’m assuming that this is just an opinion, and what would normally be called “an unverified assumption”. I say this because you have labeled me as a troll, but you have not asked me what sources of information I use.

But I will tell you.

– Aviation Week (a reader since the 70’s)
– Space Politics – the host, Jeff Foust, presents news/information, and then allows discussion about them. To me Jeff is the gold standard for space discussion, in that he allows a lot of discussion, but will cut things off when things get too far off track. By doing that, quite a lot of “pressure” is released, and I have found that people tend to understand what others mean better. Not always agree, but at least better understand.
– NewSpaceWatch – A good news aggregation site, with a constant stream of articles about what’s going on. Clark Lindsey does a pretty good job of scouring the news. I’m sure some will get hung up with the name… whatever.

Since there is not a lot of “everyday” space news, the other sites that I use for research are NASASpaceFlight, Space News, SpaceFlight Now, and a bunch of other space-related sites. Plus, NASA.gov itself, and the epitomise Wikipedia.

What information sources do you use Jason? I assume they are what you consider the “correct” ones, so let’s see the list.

Ron,
You asked for a list of sites that I visit – I gave it to you. Now you nitpick what I wrote to justify your opinion? No Ron, it’s not wrong. You just want it to be. I know you want to win some point & believe that by “having the last word” you’ve won some point. But in reality – you’re just reaching.
If anything you should realize that, I actually do know what I’m talking about.
You’ve lied, twisted words (“be nice” into “bribery”) and displayed reprehensible behavior.
Just because I visit some of the same sites you do does not mean that you & I are alike.
You appear willing to wile to win an argument. You have put words in people’s mouths, talk down to them, insulted & bullied them & even contradict yourself from one post to the next. You’ve proven to be dishonest & disingenuous. You’re so insecure you’re willing to do anything to make your “point.”
Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericSpace

“This person also attempted to pad NewSpace’s near-empty resume by claiming that United Launch Alliance is actually a NewSpace company.”

In a way they used to be, but they no longer are.

Here is how I look at the definition of “NewSpace” and “OldSpace”. The book “The Lean Entrepreneur” defines a startup as:

“A startup is a human institution designed to create a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty”

That to mean defines “NewSpace”, regardless if it’s SpaceX being the new kid on the block, or Boeing and Lockheed Martin risking their own funds for developing their EELV’s. Any company that is risking their own money, either alone or in partnership with government entities falls under that definition.

The converse of that would be “OldSpace”, which would be those companies or company divisions that don’t face any substantial risk or uncertainty in the work they do. ULA would now fall under that definition, since ULA no longer risks their own money for any new products – in fact the U.S. Government pays them a $1B subsidy. I guess subsidy’s are OK if it’s “OldSpace” getting it, huh?

I don’t know if you see the pattern here, but my definitions are all based on how businesses actually work. Are they competitive, are they innovative, do they take risks? Those attributes define “NewSpace” to me.

Not being competitive (i.e. sole-sourced contracts), not being innovative (just building what NASA tells them to build, regardless if it’s smart), and not taking risks with their products is what defines “OldSpace”.

But with risk comes the chance of failure. There is no avoiding that. But without great risk, there is no chance of great accomplishment. The challenge is managing the risk. Even you admit that SpaceX has proven what they can do, although you still call SpaceX supporters trolls, and you call SpaceX “NewSpace”. I don’t think you have a clear definition of what you really mean.

And again, I think this whole “NewSpace” vs “OldSpace” thing is really a cover for “ISS” vs “SLS”, since those that don’t like the ISS tend not to like “NewSpace”. Anyone else see that pattern?

Ron,
As I said, SpaceX is becoming more & more like a traditional space company. However, they still behave in some aspects as a NewSpace firm. NewSpace is a mentality. Is that clear enough for you?

Ron, you want to paint me as an OldSpacer – despite everything that I’ve already said. ISS is LEO, it was delivered way over budget & way late & some reports having it being deorbited as early as 2020. The only reason you support it? Is because it would mean more funds going to the companies you support. That’s it. Regardless of how this might hinder any & everything else.

Also, you (yet again) twist my words. You try to make my distaste for the childish behavior that some employ within the community – as a dislike for the whole. Sorry, but you’re flat wrong.

Yes certain elements can be applied across the space community. However, the tactics described – are by-and-large used by those that consider themselves NewSpace.

“However, they [SpaceX] still behave in some aspects as a NewSpace firm. NewSpace is a mentality. Is that clear enough for you?”

All their customers care about is whether they can do what they paid SpaceX to do. There is no “mentality” to it.

But you’re right that SpaceX as a whole still acts like a “NewSpace” firm, since I equate “NewSpace” with being a startup:

““A startup is a human institution designed to create a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty””

And SpaceX continues to take business risks, such as the Falcon Heavy, the Grasshopper, and even Commercial Crew (they are co-investing in the program with NASA). With Musk at the helm, they will never be a company that doesn’t take business risks.

Compare them with ULA, who has not responded to the innovation SpaceX is bringing to the launch market. So far all ULA has done is ramp up their marketing to promote how many successful launches they have, but otherwise they haven’t announced any new products or initiatives to address the extremely high prices they charge the government, and the lack of commercial competitiveness they have.

“ISS is LEO, it was delivered way over budget & way late & some reports having it being deorbited as early as 2020.”

“Some reports”? Is that the most informed you are about the ISS? And you used to be an intern at NASA and write for all those space publications?

Everybody that knows anything about the ISS knows that Congress extended it’s mission from 2015 till 2020, but that Congress has asked NASA to produce a report detailing what it would take to extend it’s mission beyond 2020. NASA has already stated that it’s design life should allow it to stay up until at least 2028.

If you’re going to dislike something, please be up to date with why you dislike it.

And regardless how much money was already spent, the only metric to use going forward is whether the value it produces is worth the money we are spending to get it.

You have mischaracterized what I have said on this point before, and I didn’t call you out on it as a troll or as a liar, but I could have. But I will restate it (and you can check it out to see if I’m right).

The only way to learn how to live and work in space is by living and working in space. And the least expensive place to do that is in Low Earth Orbit. That is why the ISS is the right platform for helping us figure out how to expand our presence out beyond LEO. If we can’t keep humans alive and supplied at the ISS, then we certainly can’t establish a permanent presence beyond LEO.

And isn’t that the goal? To not just do more flags & footprint missions like Apollo, but to permanently occupy space? When we leave LEO, we should be establishing a permanent presence wherever we go. But we still have a lot to learn before doing that, and we have a lot of technology that NASA itself has said needs to be developed and tested out before we go. Part of that technology is what Obama wanted NASA to be developing now, but the SLS is consuming that part of the budget.

That is why this is really a fight over the ISS, where SLS supporters think we can just jump on the SLS and be magically transported to the Moon or wherever, and magically all the technology we need will appear and work perfectly. That is a fantasy, but one that many SLS supporter appear to believe.

And since you think commercial should be killed, and the ISS ended, I guess that puts you in the SLS camp.

Ron,
As to “be up to date why you dislike it.” The Op-Ed is about poor behavior. It is up-to-date, I’ve been dealing with it all day. See what I mean, you’re trying, again, to turn, “I don’t like bad behavior” into, “I don’t like NewSpace.” That’s not what I’ve been saying over the past two days. I don’t know why you’re trying to suggest otherwise.
Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Ron,
Actually – they aren’t my words – I borrowed them from you. You stated: “Kill SLS” & called my point of view “space fantasies.” So Ron, what you’ve done is shown everyone here that even you think how you’ve been acting (to use your own words against you yet again) – HOSTILE.

I used your own words in hopes it would evoke a response. How did you like it when someone threatened you pet projects the way you’ve been threatening others? That’s right – you didn’t. Now do you see? I doubt it, it would take someone capable of admitting that how they’re behaving is offensive. However, in a way, you did admit it – by getting upset when someone phrased things exactly as you did. And I only had to change the nouns to prove my point.

I just changed SLS with commercial & added NewSpace to your “space fantasies comment. The words you typed, when used to threaten your pet projects – ticked you off. How do you think those who have been at the receiving end of these words have felt for the past three days? You just got a taste of your own medicine & you’ve just shown that you don’t like how it tastes.

Actually I do see it. You’re coming here & intentionally trying to provoke. That’s what a troll does. If you don’t like hostility – stop acting like a jerk. Other wise, to use your own words against you again – “Get used to it.”

I’m game to see if I can respond to this much emotion with a level headed discussion from an engineer who has worked for the “big two”. I’m goig to spend the time and level-headedly attempt to work my way through point by point to your posting. Please stick with me to the end.

Redefining What Is “Is”: One of the NewSpace trolls that frequents AmericaSpace loves to use this particular tactic. During his 2008 visit to Florida’s Space Coast, then-candidate Obama promised to support NASA’s ambitions to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The good people who make the dream of space flight a reality instantly recognized those words as the mantra of the Constellation Program. This particular troll denies that the president made the comment and has demanded that we should all learn to parse words; if we had done so, we would realize the error of our ways (silly us).

I didn’t know that the Constellation Program had a trademark on the phrase “Moon, Mars and beyond”. Everyone here wants to go out and explore, it’s just the how’s and the when’s and the level of risk they are willing to accept.
All politicians’ words have expiration dates; it is naive to think otherwise.

In short, when things don’t go their way, as in the case of the loss of one of the Merlin engines on the Falcon 9 during the CRS-1 mission, they will deny that the mission was anything other than a complete success. Pay no attention to the flaming wreckage hurtling out of the back end!

I know you’re being emotional, but yes failures do occur, and the root-cause analysis (as least as much as our friend ITAR will let be release) is that there was a defect in the engine. The good news is that the system as a whole has a resilient design and was able to deliver the primary mission to station. Spacex with NASA’s help conducted a root-cause analysis on the problem, NASA even loaned testing methodologists to help find the problem. SpaceX has come out and said, we need more people with this experience, send us your resumes and we will hire you. This is showing a process methodology consistent with TQM (total quality management) and is goodness – learn from your mistakes, talk to experts and build a better product/service.

They didn’t place those Orbcomm satellites into a useless orbit! It was all part of their master plan! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

The F9 second stage could not conduct the second firing due to low propellant mass, yes because the first state placed it in an off-nominal orbit. The second burn restriction was because of Station operating procedures – e.g. less than 90% confidence that the second burn would be completed because of the slightly low propellant mass (via monte carlo analysis).
Orbcomm and SpaceX made the decision to continue with deployment of the prototype satellite in the lower-than-expected orbit. There is a benefit in getting validation and verification data even in that orbit, plus Orbcomm filed an insurance claim on the satellite.

This person also attempted to pad NewSpace’s near-empty resume by claiming that United Launch Alliance is actually a NewSpace company. This would be a funny statement if it weren’t so sad. United Launch Alliance exists because of an arrangement that took place back in the late ’90s. The company is comprised of none other than Boeing and Lockheed-Martin—the very bedrock of what NewSpacers derisively call “OldSpace.” I’ve spoken with representatives from the company and they, despite his assertions, don’t view themselves as being NewSpace.

ULA has an interesting heritage. Both Boeing and LM retain the rights to commercially market the respective LVs (LM with Atlas, Boeing with Delta). The reason why it exists because of some “improprieties” committed by Boeing with respect to “knowledge” of LM “information”. It’s a 50-50 partnership between the two companies, additionally, work the companies are performing independently in support of NASA-sponsored Space Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle concepts for future space exploration initiatives was excluded from ULA.
ULA has written up some interesting studies on use of Centaur and ACES stages for use as lower-cost and reusable landing vehicles (including their partnership with Masten Space with the “spare” Centaur protptype”) in addition to propellant depot work.

The reason for this tactic is one that any employer will recognize. If you want to promote yourself and you have no experience, you pad your resume. NewSpace, to date, has accomplished precious little.

The resume padding comment is emotional. I think you’re painting with a rather broad brush that you accuse others of using. I think the work that TSC, Masten Space, Armadillo, OSC Blue Origin, SNC, Altius, SpaceX and others has accomplished a lot. You build, you test, you fly, repeat, plus sometimes you end up with a smoking crater – ask Masten & Blue Origin. That’s how the state of technology moves forward. Go back and look at the early days, there were a lot of smoking craters but now since we collectively know more we’re able to avoid the easy mistakes … sometimes.

SpaceX has created a euphoric bubble of emotion—one that no other company has yet been able to match. While testing equipment and issuing a never-ending stream of press releases, MOUs, and PowerPoints might impress the uninitiated, those within the industry know that the proof is in the pudding. Until you’re completing missions, you haven’t done anything noteworthy.

It’s a clash of cultures. SpaceX, and other companies, are at their heart a silicon valley company culture. A very flat management structure that encourages innovation. They are also a very social media savvy company. The series of tweets on the resolution of the thruster issues on CRS-2 is very refreshing; it gave us near-real time input on where it’s going. An from an emotional perspective who doesn’t want to root for the spacecraft built by a scrappy little American company with a big American flag painted on the side! It’s inspirational to the young students and engineers – if they can do it, we can to!

Folks that are using this tactic are desperately tried to latch onto United Launch Alliance’s successes, to provide NewSpace with what it currently lacks: experience. This is NewSpace.

ULA and OSC and to some extent Boeing are a bit of odd ducks. They want to do innovative things, but on the other hand they tend to operate at a glacial pace. From an engineering process perspective there’s no physical reason why they can’t improve their rate of innovation in Delta and Atlas to bring the costs down. The problem is that they are dealing with a monopsony that does not encourage innovation. LM tends to be the stodgy one – reviews upon reviews upon reviews and ZERO comfort for ANY risk-taking, although their partnership with SNC shows a flicker of innovation potential.

Bait & Switch: In our last op-ed, entitled “NewSpacers Need to Stop Hating,” we asked why NewSpace fans were biting the hand that funds them (by insulting NASA) and how they thought this behavior would benefit them when NewSpace loses a crewed vehicle. A sensible person would think that this topic would receive numerous responses, if only to deny the issues raised.

NASA is a government agency that, as a whole, is directed by the whims of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. You’re putting emotion back in with using terms like “insulting”, “sensible”, “biting the hands that feed you”. The people as NASA want to go exploring somewhere, frankly anywhere. They know in order to do this they need to free money up and do things cheaper. The easiest thing to do is to let-out logistics (COTS) and personnel transport (CCiap) access to Station. Make the contracts fixed price so it is easier to budget, and start leveraging the facility for microgravity research purposes. The work on salmonella vaccines is incredibly useful. The study on why people tend to get sick faster in microgravity has produced some interesting data on a protein that could help with immunodeficiency diseases (arthritis, MS, etc.). This is cool and useful. John Goff wrote up a rather insightful post calculating that 35 lives are lost each day by not increasing Station staffing to 7 so the amount of research can be doubled.

Not so much. Simply put, NewSpacers can’t excuse their troll behavior. Instead, all they are left with is to attempt to change the subject. This is precisely what they did. Another commentor ignored the questions entirely (in fact, it appeared he didn’t even bother to read the op-ed before going on his rant). He posted the following:
“It would have been nice if you’d addressed any of my substantive points. How is space going to get ‘opened up’ when a space station costs $100 billion?”
Here’s the problem. Nowhere in the op-ed itself or in any of my comments is this topic ever mentioned (nor, to the best of my knowledge, have I ever, or in this trolls case “evuh,” stated this).

You know you’re being a bit disingenuous. Please just keep the emotion out. I’m not into he-said-she-said tit-for-tat arguments.

Moreover, rather than answer for his and his community’s troll behavior, this individual tried to make me answer the off-topic complaints he lodged. A desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject. My response was as follows:
“ … you completely miss the point of this Op-Ed I never, in any shape form or fashion, did I pen it to detail how space would be ‘opened up’ by the ISS. You totally ignore what the Op-Ed is about &, as I said NewSpacers would, change the subject to something (anything) else.
This article is not an opportunity for NewSpacers to present real or perceived slights for me to address. It’s an opportunity to explain your compatriot’s horrid behavior. Why are you biting the hand that funds you? Do you honestly think your terrible behavior will gain you sympathy or compassion when the first crew flying on a Dragon, Dream Chaser or Lynx is lost?
It’d have been nice if YOU’D addressed any of these points. But no, typically, you merely attempt to change the subject. … I don’t know you either – but when someone changes the subject? It means they know they cannot excuse their actions. Thanks (again) for proving the points raised in the Op-Ed as correct.”
What this person has done, instead of addressing the problems that the NewSpace community suffers from, is to attempt to turn the discussion into something other than what it is. He does this because he knows he can’t excuse what NewSpace trolls have been doing. He then acts as if it is I that has explaining to do, when the fact is it’s quite the other way around.
This tactic will usually be employed when these people are caught with their pants down. If they don’t have their facts straight or an explanation, then they will try to turn the conversation away from where it’s headed. To attempt to regain some respect they will almost invariably make aspects of this “new” conversation about the person that is forcing them to address issues they want to avoid. This is NewSpace.

Whew this is a bit to unravel. Working from the bottom up. Who is being disingenuous when you make the comment “This is NewSpace.”. Keep the emotions out of your writing – This goes out to everyone. You need to follow the rule – write it up, then go get a coffee/tea/soda and come back and read it again. If you wouldn’t say what you wrote to your mother, then you shouldn’t be posting it. We’re watching a slow-motion food fight from Animal House – who wants to be Bluto?

Bringing Light to the Benighted Heathens: NewSpace trolls generally get their information from a small handful of sources, and all of them agree with their personal world view. They shun information that points to information counter to their beliefs. They generally only visit other websites to explain to those commenting on these sites how inferior they are. Posts of this nature usually don’t have anything of substance in them and are filled with condescending comments.
There’s no need to worry about pesky things like facts when you can just enter a conversation and talk down to everyone like they’re a pack of dolts. Never mind the fact that your experience folder is empty and the people you’re talking to have been doing this for decades. When you do respond to them? They will act like you’re some backward fool, mainly because you have the nerve to counter their “points” and not just mirror everything they say.
This tactic is harder to quantify. Essentially it is behavior where a NewSpace troll attempts to lord their brilliance over your poor empty head. This is also one of the funnier things that NewSpace trolls attempt. Because, as mentioned, they have the tendency to pull information from a very limited variety of sources (and some of those include NewSpace company press releases). Essentially? When dealing with the knowledge some of these people are yielding, you’re dealing with people who are suffering from intellectual inbreeding. And yet these are the people talking down to others. …
Now, one could argue that this is just indicative of the movement’s immature fan base. Not so much. When we posted our “NewSpace Fans Need to Stop Hating” op-ed, a lobbyist for the movement reached out to me. The first thing this person did was express how he disliked AmericaSpace’s owner. Things went downhill from there.
Remember, this person didn’t know me—at all. His next email, penned to silence unflattering information exposed about a NewSpace proponent, had the headline: “Is Hillhouse on drugs?” Again, keep in mind this was only the second time that this person had ever said anything to me. Here is some of the other colorful language he chose to use:
“Or is he just an idiot who slanders patriots … Seriously. Yank his leash.”
It was at this point I got confused. My first reaction was to wonder just who this NewSpace troll thought he was. Thankfully, he made sure to clear up the issue by expressing just how ignorant he was. He thought that Mr. Hillhouse was my employee—it’s the other way around. This troll didn’t bother to do his homework, and then went on a spittle-flinging rant where he thought he could tell me what to do. He tried to downplay documents that place the “patriot” in a very bad light. In short, they got caught looking bad, and this individual was demanding that we cover up for them. Even worse? He actually tried to compare a sterile news piece to the nasty behavior these trolls display on a routine basis. I mean, how arrogant do you have to be to think you can send someone an email with verbiage in it like that and receive any kind of positive response? Another thing you will see is what I’ve come to call “The God Declaration.” In this case the troll makes a statement as if Zeus were giving all the heathens an edict, something like: “Defund SLS/Orion now.” This is NewSpace.

I’ll offer the next time I’m in Austin, or your area, I’ll buy you lunch. The wise old engineer to the young buck. You really need to stop taking things so personally. I’ve have VPs, EVPs and C-suite folks say rather unflattering things about me, my work and about my teams (and their work) in general over the course of my career. Take them with a grain of salt and be the one who maintains his/her cool in situations.

Cloning: When one is determining the overall success of what NewSpace companies have accomplished, it is important to use actual accomplishments as your guide. You do this by looking at the companies that have completed large goals, such as winning large contests, completing major contracts, or flying actual missions. If you do this, however, it becomes readily apparent that when it comes to NewSpace, there is not much there.
Using this method of measuring success takes out all of the extraneous “fluff.” You ignore the tests, the promises, the signed MOUs, PowerPoints, and so on. To date? The number of major accomplishments that NewSpace has to brag about is small. Scaled Composites won the Ansari X-PRIZE, Bigelow Aerospace has launched two inflatable space station modules, and SpaceX has completed NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services contract and moved on to delivering supplies to the International Space Station. The only other NewSpace firm that has had similar successes is Orbital Sciences Corporation.
For longtime readers, you can probably remember when SpaceX was regarded very critically on this website. That is no longer the case. Why is this? Simple: they’ve done something, they’re flying missions. We’ve seen too many fly-by-night NewSpace companies come and go to pander to them until they follow suit and begin achieving objectives.

Don’t leave out the fact that the “big guys” can, and do, present blizzards of PowerPoint charts and pretty pictures. They have raised fluff to an art form. Any little company pales in comparison. An objective doesn’t necessarily mean something is in orbit. Blue Origin has been doing a lot of testing vehicles and engines, Masten is flying, Altius has working models, TSC/Virgin is busy testing, XCOR the same, SNC is building and testing airframes, OSC is trying to get the rocket off the pad, and it’s always awesome to watch a video of a 12 story RLV prototype make a “ring of fire” under the Texas sun.

So, you’re a NewSpace troll and you want to make others believe as you do, despite this lack of experience. What do you do? Simple: you pull a con that is every bit impressive as the one that the tailor did in the “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
This troll tactic is all about generalities. You don’t really deal with specifics about companies who, let’s face it, haven’t done much of anything yet. You simply mention NewSpace as a whole and talk about how you’re sending spacecraft to the ISS and will be ferrying the “average Joe” into sub-orbit, sometime … soon. The cloning aspect to this comes into play when these individuals are pressed on facts. More likely than not they will attempt to paint all NewSpace companies with the SpaceX brush. Essentially, just by the merit of these companies being NewSpace, they will be every bit as successful as SpaceX. Yeah, not so much.

So which companies would you consider fluff-merchants? I’d be interested in seeing your list. A good way to compare notes in a logical manner.

One person referred to the movement’s romanticized view of what is taking place as follows: “These guys haven’t gone in to space much. The people that follow them are all, ‘deep sighs and starry skies’ – wait that’s wrong, it’s more like deep sighs and empty skies. … ”
For those unaware of NewSpace history, calling it NewSpace 2.0 is not an unfair assessment. For those that think these companies can’t do any wrong, they’re willfully ignoring The Rotary Rocket Company, Rocketplane Kistler, SpaceDev, and numerous others. Essentially, “cloning” is an attempt to make the exception the rule. This is NewSpace.

Here’s a close analogy … do you know these names? American Motors, Apollo, Auburn, Cord, Davis Motor Car, DeSoto, Delahaye, DeLorean Motor Company, Duesenberg, Essex, Graham-Paige, Hupmobile, Kaiser, Kissel, Laforza, Lasalle, Locomobile, Marmon, Nash Motors, Packard, Pierce-Arrow, Regal, Studebaker, Tucker, Willys
Same thing was true in the automobile business; it is and will be true in the spaceflight business.
Let me take those one at a time:
Rotary Rocket, t/Space, AirLaunch – Some good ideas from Gary Hudson that needed more technical work/prototyping, but in the end suffered from inability to secure investment capital for further development.
Pioneer Rocketplane/Rocketplane Limited/Kistler Aerospace/Rocketplane Kistler – Good ideas, couldn’t raise the necessary investment capital
SpaceDev is part of SNC

I was not being disingenuous. This section details how a person attempted to convert the subject – into something entirely different. As you did in this post – I cite specific instances to detail what I’m writing. Sorry if you think of that as tit-for-tat.

If I got overly emotional, it was because this person, rather than address the issue at hand, tried to put me on the defensive & answer some real or perceived issue he had.

The one thing I wanted to be sure & tell you was – thank you. We might not agree, but at least you break down the argument & show where you have issues with something.

Lastly, I, by-no-means am saying that the “big guys” are saints.

I know that only touches on a single point you raised, but I simply don’t have time to address them all – nor should I. This is an Op-Ed, meaning it’s my opinion, my two cents.

Unlike the people I describe, I’m not rigid & can see your point of view (I do disagree with your descriptions of Kistler & Rotary).
Sincerely & with thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

AWOE,
One last thing – I don’t think many folks can “keep the emotions” out of a discussion such as this. NASA has bent over backward for these firms & the only way their supports can show their appreciation is to act this way.

Also, this is an Op-Ed – not an article. Op-Eds are designed to express a point of view. I believe this might be why you call the Op-Ed “disingenuous.”
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

“The strength of Newspace is the strength of the free market” How much of the newspace “free market” is paid for by NASA and the taxpayer? 70%, 80%, 90%? Exactly how much “no strings attached” taxpayer money was given to Elon to start SpaceX – 200 million dollars, 300 million dollars, 400 million dollars? How much in-kind engineering aid did he receive from NASA when his Dragons became Dolphins because of staging and fuel slosh problems? Doesn’t the free market mean multi-billionaire Elon should have used his money and that of entrepreneurs to fund his efforts? If he is keeping the profits from his venture, he and private investors should have taken the risks. Fortunately, with a great deal of taxpayer help, he was able to deliver cargo to the ISS, otherwise we’d be hearing about “Solyndra In Space” with the government, not Wall Street, determining investment strategy. After the billionaires send all of the millionaires and pop stars into space who want to go on sub-orbital joy-rides, what then? For profit missions to Mars? Seriously?! I can see the Wall Street investors laughing hysterically over that one! Of course, we have to stop using the Russians to transport our astronauts to the ISS which may, or may not, be around after 2020. Didn’t a newspace “entreprenuer” travel to Russia for the purpose of purchasing their rocket components, but couldn’t handle the unregulated, “rough-and-tumble” form of Russian capitalism? Strength of the free market? Looks alot like the warm embrace of state socialism for billionaire Elon and the newspacers (oh, and exactly how much did his Hollywood fundraiser put into the campaign coffers of the winner of the 2008 presidential election?).

I always had a problem with people calling NewSpace ‘free market’. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like all the NewSpace efforts and wish all the best for them, but when did it became ‘free market’? This re-invention of words and meanings seems like it came out from Orwell’s ‘1984’!

Are people so incapable and incompetent of addressing plain simple facts? When will people realise that:

a) All this OldSpace/NewSpace debate and thrashing only hurts the space program as a whole. The space program needs the experience and expertise of establihed OldSpace with the thrust and innovation of NewSpace, if we want to move forward at all.

b)Most of NewSpace funding and development (there are some exceptions of course), as you well state, comes largely from public money. So in essence, this isn’t ‘commercial’, and it isn’t ‘free market’. So what the fuss is all about?

I’m really saddened to see that although many NewSpace advocates claim that they have the ultimate good of space development in mind, in reality they don’t. They couldn’t care less about space exploration and expansion. They just want to keep their share of the pie, and if possible, take the whole pie as well! It’s just a battle of ‘who gets the money, us or they’.

Leonidas,
If I remember, we’ve had this discussion before. I dubbed it NowSpace (New & Old combined). I couldn’t agree more. However, this is unlikely to happen. One side thinks they should get all the contracts & the other side think they should get them all.

Your last paragraph is dead on. What you leave out are the tactics they use to get their slice of the pie. When folks spot issues, highlight problems or find that their numbers don’t add up? They resort to the tactics described.

Yes, Jason, you’re right! I didn’t mention it because the whole thing is so ridiculously nauseating that I stopped paying any attention. Is this the ‘brave new world’ of space? Thanks, but I’ll pass!

It really disturbs me and frightens me that people can’t seem to listen to reason. I’m no seer, but as much as I love all the NewSpace efforts towards LEO (and I really do!), but with attitudes like these, some of these people will learn a few things the hard, painful way, and it will really hurt (like NASA did with the Space Shuttle). When that happens, I really hope that the space program as a whole won’t suffer as well.

Once again Jason, I really value and respect yours and Jim’s articles, here on AmericaSpace. This site has come to the top of my list, and is the news source of choice for me (alongside Universe Today) for space-related information. I can’t praise your efforts highly enough! Having said that, from a point on, when people just don’t want to listen to reason, I believe your voice falls to deaf ears and you’re just wasting your breath. If some people don’t want to listen, then there’s nothing you, or anyone else for that matter, do about it.

Thank you. Maybe I’m wrong & Ron is right. But I don’t think so. Why? Because according to him he rarely makes a mistake & is always correct. Pride goes before a fall. I don’t wish NewSpace any ill will – I just wish they’d stop dumping their ill will on those of us with the nerve to disagree.

I so much admire your integrity, honesty and dedication to truth and reason. You are a very brave, honest and articulate individual, and your heartfelt support for space and space exploration is so much appreciated and an inspiration! I find myself many times wanting to read your posts not just for the news of the day, but for your insightful comments and perspective on all things space. The same goes for Jim, but he rarely posts articles compared to you. If I couldd come to the US, I’d surely buy you both a drink!

I really don’t wish NewSpace any ill will also. I dread the day they will face a disaster or lose a crew, and I so much wish for all the companies to succeed in their plans! But this pride, as you well put it, can often lead to disaster. NASA went there first and faced the heat more than once. And they learned some really valuable lessons. Does NewSpace have to walk that same path in order to mature itself? Only time will tell.

Having said all these, my humble personal opinion is that debating the attitude of some NewSpacers with them, for a prolonged time, ends up being a black hole that sucks you in also. It happened to me in the past when I tried to reason with all the idiots who believe the moon landings were a hoax. Then I realised that no matter what, those people in reality they don’t want to debate and face the facts. They just want to cling to their paranoia no matter what. And then I left them to rot in their schizophrenic paranoia.

You’ve stated your case in the best possible way. Let whoever want to listen, listen. When people respond in an emotional and polarised way, your reasoning can’t reach them no matter what you do, for the simple reason that they’re debating emotionally and not rationally, intellectually. It’s like living in two different worlds. Like you’re talking different languages. When they’re in that state, people don’t act, they just react, to the ones they feel that don’t validate the emotional state they’re in. And the reaction is ehat you’ve experienced. It happens all the time, in every corner of this world, whith subjects that heat people up. Look just what happens to political or religious debates that go out of hand. This current debate is no different.

Thank you Karol! I felt that Jason has caught himself up in a vicious circle and it does him no justice at all. In the contrary, the whole thing makes him come off like the ‘town’s idiot’-even though he clearly is the opposite. I feel that he just has to distance himself a bit from this whole thing and clear his mind.

Jason, I have been in your shoes and can understand how frustrating it can be. But you can put the experience into good use for the next time something similar happens, so that the past experience will help you think twice before taking the bait.

They say that the empty and hollow barrels are the ones making the loudest of noises. So, don’t chose to add to the noise. Just laugh at it (Even though I’m saying that, I’m perfectly aware that I may fall into that same trap in the future myself, cause I’m just human like everyone else).

Leonidas,
Mind if I pick your brain? If you respond, you become no better than them, however, if you ignore them they act as if they “won” something. It seems to be a no-win scenario. Thoughts?
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Jason, all this brings me this phrase in mind: ‘Don’t judge a situation by the way a conversation ends”.

Sadly, there will always be people in life that will want to have the last word, no matter what. They feel that they’re proving something this way. And it’s annoying for the rest of us, and when the debate deals with something dear to us, we can get very emotional as well, and then we are caught in an endless bickering that only wastes our energy.

You are frustrated when people want to always have the last word and can’t realise their shortcomings? Fine. Let time and history prove them wrong! And oh boy, when it will, you won’t be there fast enough to pick their jaw off the floor!

I’ve dealt with situation like this time and again in my life, and I found myself always repeating the same pattern-getting frustrated, emotional, and bitter. And I kept doing the same thing until I realised that:

a) If people just don’t want to see another point of view and they a ‘holier-thatn-thu’ attitude, I really can’t help them.

b) When I realised the validity of my own points, I stopped trying desperately to prove them to others who wouldn’t listen and I just ignored all the bickering and hassling. There was no point in taking notice or offense from the bickering.

And when I realised this, I just waited for things to come full circle (sooner or later they always do) and all the nauseating behavior turned back to their owners faces.

It’s really tough to learn how to keep your cool in situations like these. I hope my own experience helps. But one thing I’m certain of: If you ignore them, it’s not like they ‘defeated’ you. Not really. They’re just deluding themselves. Time will be a hursh judge on people that behave this way after all. You’re only defeated if you play their game.

And you may not realise it but this whole thing here has been a valuable experience for me also. So, I’d have to say thank you for that.

Leonidas,
I can be so dense, that’s how I should have dealt with this all along. Thanks.

Yeah, but I don’t want to be the troll that goes, “Nyah-Nyah Told You SO!” I truly support the concept of LEO-commercial, NASA-BEO.

I realized that too (I was a tad slow on the up-take though). I went back & looked at what Ron was doing – he hasn’t tried once to “reach across the aisle” & actually communicate. Moreover, I ran an experiment – I converted Ron’s comments: “Kill SLS” into “Kill Commercial” & “space fantasies” into “NewSpace fantasies.” His reaction summed up what I’ve been trying to say for days. He flipped his lid. I’ve been saying that this behavior only serves to divide & anger. He called my comments, those based off of his own words, “hostile.”

As to your “into their faces” statement. I accomplished that – why beat a dead horse?

You’re correct. I’m really happy with this series as it has shown that supporters of NewSpace want to ignore & some cases even encourage this. It will only hurt them. I’m trying to get them to stop their self-destructive behavior. I’ve said what I have to say & appreciate your advice very much.
Sincerely & with thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

I don’t want to run around saying ‘I told you so’, either! That’s not the point! But sometimes people have to learn the hard way, because they didn’t want to listen in the first place. And when they learn, you don’t have to brag about the validity of your points of view then. You can just remain silent, and your silence will speak volumes more than words can ever be! Believe me, this way, people will not be able to find a hole fast enough to hide in!

I really appreciate what your’re trying to do. You want to bring this part of the space community to its senses, so that we can all benefit from that. Your goal is noble, but your efforts only bear fruit when people really want to listen. When they can behave as reasonable adults. If they can’t, then there’s nothing you can really do. It’s this moment when you reach the point where you have to withdraw respectfully, cause your ‘defeat’ will be if you continue losing your breath on them. When dialogue and reasoning fails, you just have to let go and let time run its course. When people do learn afterwards, you don’t have to say ‘I told you’, because they will already know it, even if they will not aknowledge it, but you’ll know that they know..

I hope I’m not rambling on..

And I can’t tell you how much I share your view: Commercial to LEO and NASA to every place beyond! That’s how it’s supposed to be happening! So let’s leave those folks have a try and accomplish things, even with their lousy attitudes, when you can’t do anything to alter this attitude. It’s this attitude that will be their own undoing and punishment in difficult times when things get rough. And if they fail because of this, then evolution will have run its course (it always does) and they will become extinct, so that a newer and hopefully better breed of commercial space sector comes along.

Leo,
Moreover, it alienates the other side. As this series has proven, the space community is divided enough. I think that the only time one’s silence doesn’t speak volumes is when dealing with the individuals who use this type of behavior. It’s my belief, and I might be wrong, that when the day comes that a crewed commercial vehicle is lost? And when folks do repay the folks that have acted this for their antics? They (the trolls) won’t accept any responsibility, they won’t “get it.” It will only deepen the divide & resentment between the two camps.

As to bearing fruit, take a look at where the thread has gone over the past few hours. I haven’t read Ron’s posts today yet, but he & I came to an understanding last night & have agreed to start over. I don’t want to give up on people, especially those that support a broader competition to access to LEO and thus driving down the cost of access to orbit. We need them, but we also need them to handle themselves in a manner that reflects well on themselves & the movement they represent.

Even if you were rambling? Who am I to complain?

I see and understand what you’re saying in this part – put I respectfully disagree. What I have seen & heard is that a good many within NASA are not happy about how these people are behaving after NASA has been directed to support them. Some within the agency would be happy to cut them off entirely. As I’ve said repeatedly – this behavior is self destructive.
Sincerely & with thanks, Jason

Jason, I see youur points, and you made me think for a while about this whole thing from a differebt perspective. I may well be wrong about it, and maybe it’s a chance for me to realise some things. First, that maybe I have a tendency to give up on people more easily than I should, and second, that my patience tends to evaporate when people get offensive and unfriendly and I tend to react dismissively. I see your point. Maybe if you give people enough time, they might come to an understanding. And a community can come out stronger (hopefully) because of this.

Interesting how conversations that deal supposedly with only space-related topics, can make you think about and evaluate all shorts of different things and behaviours that would seem unrelated to space topics. I’m richer as a person because of this. Haven’t had this type of conversation online for ages, and it’s refreshing.

Ron,
(Here I go breaking my agreement not to waste any more time with you) By only responding to things you disagree with? You’re just alienating people. You’re just provoking. A little bit of give to all of your “take” – would go a long way. BTW, Doug, Noel, Ferris, AWOE – all disagreed with me – they’re not trolls because they wanted to talk – you don’t. You want to bully everyone into agreeing with you. None of these folks resorted to your type of behavior. Occasionally agreeing with someone makes it a conversation. Constantly disagreeing with everyone makes it a rant. I’m sorry you don’t get that.

Ron, as I said above – I label people like you trolls. As I said earlier – you think everyone agrees with you & disagrees with me. Now who is generalizing? Yes Ron, you intended malice & have done so for four days.

Now you’re implying we either do as you say or “suffer the consequences.” Typical & incorrect. We do know our audience. Coming from someone that visits it just to provoke those that disagree with him – makes this comment laughable.

Ron, you confused “Be Nice” with “Bribery” you lied & when someone used the words you’ve been using? You got angry. After you called your own words “hostile” – I consider you yourself proving what I’ve been saying all week. When I phrased things the way you phrased it – it seriously ticked you off. So, your reaction to your own words shows how your behavior is detrimental to any real conversation. I can’t think of any more eloquent way to win an argument than that.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Jason, the still of response you use is hard to follow, since it appears you are reading something, then starting a new paragraph to respond to it, but nobody else knows what you are responding to.

Jason said:

“By only responding to things you disagree with? You’re just alienating people. You’re just provoking.”

Or, opinion. You don’t have to respond, as others don’t. Don’t you want people with opinions different than your own to add different perspectives? Or do you want a “Self Admiration Club”?

“Now you’re implying we either do as you say or “suffer the consequences.””

OK, I guess it’s OK if you put words in my mouth, but the reverse is not acceptable.

I don’t know if you realize this, but I’m not your target customer – you can’t afford (time-wise) many people like me, right?

But do you know what the characteristics are of the people you want to attract? Yeah, yeah, no trolls, and no one that disagrees with you too much. But is that enough for what you are doing? Only you and whoever else in your group can know… I’m just adding food for thought.

Just a closing thought on this.

It’s easy to have a debate about facts, since facts are quantifiable and testable by anyone. For instance, you said that there were multiple Orbcomm satellites that were lost on the CRS-1 flight, when in fact there was only one. No need to debate, the information is available online for all to see.

Opinions though are not quantifiable. I think the SLS is a bad use of public money, and you don’t. You don’t think the ISS provides enough value, and I do. Who is right? It’s a matter of opinion, and no one can really be judged right or wrong.

So I can say all day long that the SLS is a waste of money, and you can’t prove me wrong. I can’t prove I’m right either, but I don’t have to say that – it’s a given.

Hey, remember to quote the person you are responding to so everyone has a clue what the conversation is and how well you are responding – It’s common courtesy.

Dear Ron,
Again, look at my discussion with Ferris. I’ve said this repeatedly. I want to hear from people with opposing view points. It’s not what you’re saying Ron – it’s how you’re saying it. It also is about what your willing to do to “win” the debate. You shown you found your own words as “hostile.” Why do you think I phrased them that way? You’re right – this is a waste of time. Can we do better? I suggest we try.

Ron, people can hate everything I say & disagree with every word I utter. However, that doesn’t give them carte blanche to behave however they want. I’ve said what I have to say, now I have a proposal for you.

Ken says you have a lot to offer. I want to hear it. I tell you what. You don’t have to join this “admiration society” of yours, don’t have to agree with me, concede anything. All you have to say is: “Jason, it looks like we got off on the wrong foot – let’s start over.” I only ask that we not get into a never-ending back & forth. If we disagree, we disagree. That doesn’t make me right & you wrong – it is what it is. We agree to appreciate & listen to one another’s points & communicate with one another. We’re both adults, we can do better than this. I’m happy to listen to you – if you’re willing to listen to me.
Sincerely & with regards, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Coastal Ron,
A troll – is a troll. Here’s the confusion you & others have. Responding to & disagreeing with others with respect doesn’t make you a troll. If Karol used the tactics described in the article, then yes, I would say she was. However, Musk has provided numbers which essentially say that the U.S. taxpayer has footed 90 percent of his companies “commercial” bill. That’s not being a troll Ron – that’s just highlighting a fact you don’t like. If you’re just disagreeing with someone, that’s not only acceptable – it’s welcomed. However, do so on the points, debate the facts. You’re upset because this series makes your movement’s antics look exactly like what they are – ugly.

What you & others are either not understanding, or intentionally trying to ignore is this simple concept. It’s not what you say – it’s how you say it.

Review the tactics in this series, check out the examples I highlight. I’m not in the mood to blow a day explaining the value of manners & respect to someone. If you don’t get how some might find the actions described in this series as severely offensive – then you have far larger issues to contend with.

This appears to be an epidemic in the NewSpace community, whenever someone points out these issues, they either ignore them entirely or try to twist what is being said into something else.

Also, you’re getting offended at me for pointing out this problem. You should probably read the “Shoot the Messenger” tactic described in the closing segment tomorrow. You’re getting upset with the people that highlight problems within your community – what you should be doing is working to address those issues.

I believe one of the reasons for this NewSpace personality disorder is that other websites tolerate, and in some cases encourage bad behavior. We don’t.

As I’ve said (repeatedly) I have no issues whatsoever with commercial access to orbit & NASA funding it. What I do have a problem with is that, predominantly, within the NewSpace movement there is an underlying bitterness that won’t allow its followers to show appreciation for what NASA has done for it lately. I predicted that, sooner or later, this would come back to bite them. My advice is treat others with respect if you want to be treated with respect. Otherwise, someone might actually be recording your negative activities – & post them for the world to see.

Ron,
You’re being obtuse. The whole point of “commercial” was that much of the development cost was supposed to be picked up by the companies – not the taxpayer. Given that you seem ill-informed on the subject, I guess I’m not the only one who is invariably wrong. Sorry Ron, I’ve tried to be polite to you, but, as usual, you insult, look down on (even though you’re excluding basic facts) & flat out lie. Some of your comments are dead on, others are filled with holes or are factually inaccurate.

Ron, you just don’t like it when the group you support gets called out. Maybe if those you support hadn’t been so busy burning bridges your groups would be in a better position than the eroding one we see today.

Lastly, despite the fact that I’ve agreed with you on several points, you’ve been hung up on that which we don’t agree. You defend people who behave like spoiled children, make up facts & when all else fails you’re willing to flat out lie (stating that I said there was no use for SLS/Orion – when I stated their use was for exploration).

I don’t lump everyone that is working in commercial space into the NewSpace category. To me? The term is reserved for people who behave as described in this series. To use a word that another troll posted on our comment board – your behaviors & attitudes – “suck.” This series must have hit pretty close to the mark to have gotten you so bothered. Sorry, but the truth hurts.

My advice is that you take a look at the problems highlighted rather than to chastise those with the nerve to mention them. You seem willing to do anything to cover up the failures of your “selected few.” I’ve tried to be polite, but lying, trying to turn a discussion into something it isn’t, projecting problems that you are suffering from onto others? If you think that these actions are acceptable, then really what more is there to say?

You & yours will continue to operate under the mistaken impression that you can behave any way you like without repercussions. Sequestration – will only be the start of your woes & until you & those who behave like you learn manners, respect & common courtesy – you will find that less & less people will want to waste time dealing with you.

“The whole point of “commercial” was that much of the development cost was supposed to be picked up by the companies – not the taxpayer.”

I’m not familiar with that claim. Please cite your source.

What I do know is that the point of the Commercial Cargo & Crew program was to turn transportation to LEO into a service that NASA could “buy” as needed, and that they wouldn’t have to own and operate it like they did with the Shuttle. Or as NASA puts it:

“NASA’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is investing financial and technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-effective space transportation capabilities.”

The development part of the program (i.e. COTS and CCDev & CCiCap) is because NASA, as the sole customer, has very specific requirements that they want their service providers to meet. This happens in industry all the time, so it’s not an unusual request from a customer. But since NASA has NASA specific requirements, and there are no other current customers, NASA needs to pay for that customization. Again, this is a pretty standard thing in the commercial world, and it’s not unique to NASA.

Now NASA could have put out an RFP for transportation to LEO, and said that they would accept whatever standards the providers thought were necessary, but that’s not what NASA and the U.S. Government wanted.

All of this is pretty clear if you look at it from a business perspective, and it ha nothing to do with labeling companies, since according to your definition of things, both “NewSpace” and “OldSpace” are getting the same deal. If Boeing and Lockheed Martin would have had better bids, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, but they didn’t on COTS, and only Boeing made it on CCDev.

“Lastly, despite the fact that I’ve agreed with you on several points, you’ve been hung up on that which we don’t agree.”

I’m new to your website, but if it’s some sort of “self admiration” club, what’s the point? I post comments on blogs to discuss, debate and learn, and I have learned quite a bit from people that I didn’t initially agree with.

But like you, I will take the time to “correct the record” if I see people posting FUD or obviously incorrect information. Sometimes it’s trolls, sometimes it’s people with an obvious agenda.

Ron,
Anyone familiar with the concept behind commercial cargo & commercial crew knows this. Ed Mango himself has said as much. Thanks by the way – that’s the “Show Me” tactic. If you hadn’t spent the last three days arguing with any & everyone that disagrees with you, I might do this. But you haven’t. In fact, it’s part of the reason why I haven’t bothered to respond to your every post. If I did so? I’d waste time finding (in this case basic) facts, present them to you – & then you’d either ignore them or post something you think counters this. So, other than wasting my time – what’s the point? The only point of view you want – is your own. In fact the only reason I bother to reply is so people like Lars can’t say that I’m avoiding some point you raise.

The self admiration club comment was cute, all I was saying is that you’re expecting people to agree to every single last word you utter. I understand that we won’t agree on every point & decide to dwell on it. Given the fact that you’ve been issuing a never-ending stream of “Coastal Ron Edicts” – it appears you can’t handle having someone disagree with you & feel the unstoppable urge to shout everyone down who dissents. You seem desperate to catch us in a “gotcha” moment. I guess you’ll say anything to avoid the fact that the behavior detailed – shines a bad light on the NewSpace movement.

Ron I ask you, how can you defend the stuff detailed in this series? Do you think acting this way is acceptable? Do you think it will further your cause? Sequestration is just the start & I’m hoping that by dragging this into the light these issues can be addressed & we can start talking “to” one another – instead if “at” one another. Also, review the definition of Troll within the article.

Lastly, you seem to think you can compare my comments to the tactics described and thus make me look as bad as they do. Sorry, but it isn’t the same. I spent most of Sunday night talking with you. When I found we don’t agree did I spam you? Did I act in the manner I described in this series? I know what you will do next, you will drag up something negative that I’ve said from today – sorry Ron, but after you lied in an earlier comment – what do you expect? Yes we are different – I’m not willing to lie to make me & mine look good – you have proven your willingness to do this, to misrepresent the facts, cherry pick and on & on. We are VERY different & yes I do call you a troll – because you act like one. A trolls primary goal is the provoke someone. Isn’t that exactly what you have been doing?

Ron, the last thing you should be doing is what you are currently doing – talking down to folks & trying to express some “moral authority” – after lying. You’ll probably say, “When did I lie?” – you stated that I agreed with you about SLS/Orion, that there is no need for them – after I wasted most of Sunday evening explaining what their purpose was.

“The self admiration club comment was pretty low, all I was saying is that you’re expecting people to agree to every single last word you utter.”

You misunderstood. I was saying what is the worth of having a space related blog where everyone agrees with each other (i.e a self-admiration club)? That doesn’t add any new perspectives or new information, it’s just a bunch of people agreeing with each other. If you and I and everyone else agreed with each other, what is the point of having a blog? Think about that…

Oh, and Jason, I never said anything about me – you added that on your own. And maybe you added it because you are taking all of this too seriously? It’s one thing to try and defend and correct, but Dude, you can’t take it personally.

Not to burst your bubble, but I have never heard of you, and I’m sure you’ve never heard of me, so don’t get too uptight and try to control everyone. We’re all adults here, and either we get it, or we’ll never get it, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

Ron,
You’re being intentionally obtuse. This isn’t about what you’re saying – it’s about how you say it. You imply that I demand everyone agree with me – the fact couldn’t being further from your misrepresentation. I only ask that folks be civil when disagreeing. Think about that..
I don’t expect anyone to “hear of me” you try to make this my “problem.” I don’t want to control you, I don’t want you to agree with me & to be honest? After behaving as you have your opinion has little worth. That’s because you’ve already lied, turned “be nice” into “bribery” shoved words in people’s mouth & acted reprehensibly.
I’m not trying to “control” anybody – but I don’t want them coming to the website I represent & behaving inappropriately.
By the way, I hate to burst your bubble – but you’re not an adult if you act the way you have been. I find it more than a little hypocritical after you spent the last three days penning the “Coastal Ron” doctrine that you’d have the nerve to utter: “we get it, or we’ll never get it, and there is nothing you can do to change that.” If you actually believed that you wouldn’t have invested all the time you have trying to silence everyone who disagrees with you. So, why are you trying to stop me from doing what you yourself are guilty of?
What you’re doing is called projecting Ron – your placing all your hangups on others.

Imagine the Air Force paying for the DDT&E of a new cargo aircraft, say a replacement for the C-17. And like the CCP programs, the AF won’t own these aircraft that it funds wholly by the billions of dollars; they remain Boeing’s. the AF must pay to use these aircraft. Oh, and Boeing tells the AF that its pilots, not the Air Force’s, will fly all of the missions.

How long do any of us imagine such a nonsensical arrangement would last? Days? The ink would not even be dry before that contract was terminated. Why is space any different?

Certainly, when SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Boeing, OSC, and Blue Origin were given well over a billion by NASA under COTS, CCDev-1, CCDev-2, CCiCap, and follow-on CCP programs, they were and are expected to meet certain milestones. Ahhh, such hard work for otherwise free money. Really, seriously?

And what does NASA get for its billions? In funding Falcon-9, Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser, etc, all NASA “bought” was capability and nothing more. Recently, the CCP companies have told NASA that they want their pilots to fly all missions, even ones where NASA astronauts are being…well, delivered like so much cargo, to ISS. Now that’s chutzpah!

I think New Space reacts the way it does because it wants, really needs, to hide the how’s and what’s of commercial space. It knows that if the American people ever got wind of the arrangement between NASA and the commercial companies, those deals would be very soon dead and the notion of Washington being fundamentally tuned-out from radio reality would be further reenforced.

“Imagine the Air Force paying for the DDT&E of a new cargo aircraft, say a replacement for the C-17.”

Actually the Air Force couldn’t find an aircraft that did what the C-17 did, so they did have to pay for the DDT&E to have one built. That’s what the Advanced Medium STOL Transport project did.

But what you apparently don’t understand is that transporting cargo and crew to the ISS is not a fungible service. You can’t just go to any transportation company, and say “how much would you charge to deliver this cargo to a space station in Low Earth Orbit? Oh, and you have to do it the way that NASA wants, but NASA doesn’t have a complete set of specs for what it wants.”

If you owned the company NASA came to with that request, wouldn’t you want NASA to foot some of the risk?

“Ahhh, such hard work for otherwise free money. Really, seriously?”

I suppose you think it’s easy to build human-capable spacecraft?

But you also apparently miss the beauty of the milestone approach, which is that the taxpayer doesn’t have to pay for anything that isn’t done per the agreed to milestone schedule. Compared to a T&M or Cost-Plus contract, that is a pretty good value, don’t you think?

“And what does NASA get for its billions?”

The ability to lower it’s operating costs by buying services instead of being an owner/operator. The economics of this are pretty clear.

“It knows that if the American people ever got wind of the arrangement between NASA and the commercial companies, those deals would be very soon dead”

Maybe you don’t read the news, or follow any of the popular media, but every time SpaceX launches to the ISS, the public hears about the Commercial Cargo program, how it is replacing what the Shuttle did for far less money, and they even say that SpaceX is working on a crew version of the Dragon spacecraft.

Ron,
If they “know that” then they also must know that two Dragon capsules can fit in the shuttle’s payload bay – and therefore it isn’t a replacement for shuttle as the up & down mass capabilities aren’t remotely similar.

Can’t speak to the rest of your statement, I’m not willing to put words in people’s mouths as you seem so willing to do.

“If they “know that” then they also must know that two Dragon capsules can fit in the shuttle’s payload bay – and therefore it isn’t a replacement for shuttle as the up & down mass capabilities aren’t remotely similar.”

The Dragon is currently replacing the cargo resupply function of the Shuttle, and soon it will be replacing the crew transportation function of the Shuttle.

And I never said it was a one-for-one replacement – are you trying to put words in my mouth? Isn’t that a troll tactic? 😉

Ron,
You made the statement without clarifying & have been all over me today for doing that. I find it so funny that you try to bark at others for what you yourself are guilty of. Generalizing the cargo capacity is funny. Predicting with certainty in your tone about crew? Is hysterical.
My one regret is that I wasted so much time trying to communicate with you. I’m only now realizing that you don’t want to talk to folks – you want to talk at them and to show them how smart you think you are.
Jeff Foust has my deepest respect. I wish I ignored you as much as it appears he has learned to. You’re the kind of person that would argue the sky is not blue.
Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

You do see the difference that when the Air Force paid McDonnell-Douglass tens of billions to construct the over 220 C-17 aircraft, it was the Air Force, not McDonnell-Douglas, that owned all of the aircraft?

I don’t care that NASA pays for goods and services. But that isn’t what is happening with commercial space. Instead, the CCP companies are paid to develop and build the rockets and spaceships that NASA never owns and has to then pay again to use. Tell me what industry has such an arrangement as do Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX with NASA in CCP?

You can’t just go to any transportation company, and say “how much would you charge to deliver this cargo to a space station in Low Earth Orbit?
Really. Virgin Galactic was successful in finding investors and didn’t need the government to pay 90%, or even 10%, of its development and commercial funding. But your saying that the risk weighed against the return-on-investment is such that no company can find sufficient investors, even with today’s absurdly low interest rates, to fund development of ISS commercial cargo and crew? It doesn’t bother you that the market is saying there is no commercially viable market in ISS crew and cargo, or follow-on, services? That what we have today in ISS crew and cargo services is just a contrived market?

And how long do you think Congress will be willing to give commercial crew companies indemnification?

Compared to a T&M or Cost-Plus contract, that is a pretty good value, don’t you think?
You’re honestly asking me if I think free money for reaching milestones is better than a contract? In short, no.

wouldn’t you want NASA to foot some of the risk?
With NASA putting in over 90% of the money, NASA is footing pretty much all of the risk. What I want is for these companies to put their assets up as collateral to NASA should they go under. And, thanks to Congress, that is exactly what will happen after CCiCap.

You do see the difference that when the Air Force paid McDonnell-Douglass tens of billions to construct the over 220 C-17 aircraft, it was the Air Force, not McDonnell-Douglas, that owned all of the aircraft?

You can’t just go to any transportation company, and say “how much would you charge to deliver this cargo to a space station in Low Earth Orbit?
Really. Virgin Galactic was successful in finding investors and didn’t need the government to pay 90%, or even 10%, of its development and commercial funding. But your saying that the risk weighed against the return-on-investment is such that no company can find sufficient investors, even with today’s absurdly low interest rates, to fund development of ISS commercial cargo and crew? It doesn’t bother you that the market is saying there is no commercially viable market in ISS crew and cargo, or follow-on, services? That what we have today in ISS crew and cargo services is just a contrived market?

Compared to a T&M or Cost-Plus contract, that is a pretty good value, don’t you think?
You’re honestly asking me if I think free money for reaching milestones is better than a contract in which NASA would own what it spends money on? In short, no.

wouldn’t you want NASA to foot some of the risk?
With NASA putting in over 90% of the money, NASA is footing pretty much all of the risk. What I want is for these companies to put their assets up as collateral to NASA should they go under. And, thanks to Congress, that is exactly what will happen after CCiCap.

You do see the difference that when the Air Force paid McDonnell-Douglass tens of billions to construct the over 220 C-17 aircraft, it was the Air Force, not McDonnell-Douglas, that owned all of the aircraft? Or are you willing to pay Apple to build iPads that it then sells to you, after you pay more money? If you are, I’d really love to do business with you.

You can’t just go to any transportation company, and say “how much would you charge to deliver this cargo to a space station in Low Earth Orbit?
Really? Virgin Galactic was successful in finding investors and didn’t need the government to pay 90%, or even 10%, of its development and commercial funding for its suborbital spacecraft.

But you’re saying that the risk weighed against the return-on-investment is such that no company can find sufficient investors, even with today’s absurdly low interest rates, to fund development of ISS commercial cargo and crew? It doesn’t bother you that the market is saying there is therefore no commercially viable market in ISS crew and cargo, or follow-on, services? That what we have today in ISS crew and cargo services is just a contrived market? And like most contrived markets, will not have market footing to be able to stand on its own?

The ability to lower it’s operating costs by buying services instead of being an owner/operator.
Here’s a more equitable solution, NASA’s money gets the the agency the hardware and the commercial space firms, that is SpaceX and OSC in the case of CRS, manage what they built. No more freebies.

Compared to a T&M or Cost-Plus contract, that is a pretty good value, don’t you think?
You’re honestly asking me if I think free money for reaching milestones is better than a contract in which NASA would own what it spends money on? In short, no.

The economics of this are pretty clear.
In the 90’s Rotary Rocket, Space Launch, Kistler, the Air Force, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin all thought that the economics were pretty clear on commercial space. That worked out pretty badly. In the eventual bloodbath every single company, absent Boeing and Lockheed Martin, either filed Chapter 11 or 7. Boeing and Lockheed Martin only survived because, their rockets being needed for national security reasons, their rocket arms were forced into a shotgun wedding that is today ULA.

wouldn’t you want NASA to foot some of the risk?
With NASA putting in over 90% of the money, NASA is footing pretty much all of the risk. Better would be for these companies to put their assets up as collateral for continued NASA funding. And, thanks to Congress, that is exactly what will happen after CCiCap.

I’ll stop you right there. The Air Force has a space program, so we do not need to make aircraft analogies to guess what they’d do if they had a space program. They did exactly what NASA is doing with commercial crew: they turned over responsibility for launching their missions to commercial companies. These commercial companies competed for development money, they designed new launch vehicles, and they own and operate their own launch vehicles, not the Air Force. They provide a reliable capability for the Air Force’s launch services needs, they are cheaper than the Titan 4 that came before them, and that’s what the Air Force actually needed. Their commercial success hasn’t taken the world by storm, but they have found work launching NASA probes and one day soon may launch NASA crews because of the commercial crew program. The Air Force, meanwhile, is free to take advantage of more cost effective transportation options that arise, like the Falcon rockets, by not being wedded to their own in house launch solution, but instead by procuring their needs in an open competitive manner.

The Air Force behaved in direct contradiction to your analogy, and NASA’s commercial crew program is operating along those very lines that the Air Force uses.

I find the contributions in America Space illuminating and I like tracking your stories. Having participated in some battles myself, I also understand the way in which issues can become polarized and have empathy with the frustration that one often experiences in situations like this.

On the more critical side, I think that your contribution contributes to polarization by essentializing the debate. There is no ‘movement’, just a bunch of individuals running around with the latest fashionable term (a habit that is often an indication of a lack of creativity). Only some of these happen to be derogatory or rude about it and it does not make sense to extrapolate the experience with these to the ‘movement’ as a whole, as you seem to be doing.

The truth is that some of the critique towards the established agencies coming from that side of the spectrum is legitimate, just as one can expect ‘NewSpace’ to suffer from its own weaknesses.

Lets not get stuck in sandbox battles here. Its a waste of time and takes away energies from what is an enjoyable and very readable news service.

Conrad,
There’s an underlying bitterness in NewSpace that is not helping them. I agree with much of what you have said. However, if they’re going to be the NewSpace we need them to be – they need to correct these issues.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

“There’s an underlying bitterness in NewSpace that is not helping them.”

As Inigo Montoya would say:

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

I think the SLS is a waste of money, in that it is transportation infrastructure that is being built far in advance of any identified need, and that NASA’s budget is too small to ultimately use it.

You have even agreed with me that there are no known needs for the SLS.

Is this “bitterness”? No. Frustration, yes, but it’s not even related to “NewSpace” or “OldSpace”, it’s related to the political system that allowed the SLS to happen. I don’t blame Boeing for the small cabal of Senators that decided they want to save jobs in the aftermath of the Constellation cancellation (Senator Nelson actually stated that).

And in any case, if I use your definition of “NewSpace”, then things are actually going pretty well, especially considering the state of the budget and all. The SLS by comparison is in far worse budget shape, so all things considered, things aren’t that bad. Funding went down on Commercial Crew, but at the same percentage as the SLS took the hit, and I don’t see this as affecting the operational date for crew transportation services, or at least not for SpaceX (one of your “NewSpace” companies).

But besides Commercial Cargo & Crew, what other “NewSpace” work is NASA doing to get bitter about?

Ron,
So, by quoting a hip movie you think makes you sound cool & therefore correct? To quote another movie: “Not so much.” Bitterness means: 3. Difficult or distasteful to accept, admit, or bear: the bitter truth; bitter sorrow. 4. Proceeding from or exhibiting strong animosity: a bitter struggle; bitter foes. 5. Resulting from or expressive of severe grief, anguish, or disappointment: cried bitter tears.
6. Marked by resentment or cynicism: Actually? I think it means exactly what I thought it meant – and it perfectly describes how NewSpacers have been acting.

Ron, I never agreed with you that there is no need for SLS or Orion – now you’re either twisting my words or flat out lying. How dare you? In fact, I said, if anything we should defund commercial to support exploration. Ron that – was very troll-worthy. Thanks for showing just why there was a need for this Op-Ed. What I stated was that NASA has limited funding, that the agency is slow-rolling SLS in hopes for a better financial footing & that you were backing commercial efforts to send cargo and possibly crew to a destination that might not be there in seven years.

Thanks for proving my point Ron. By lying and twisting my words while all the while defending the poor behavior or your community – you’ve validated everything I’ve been saying.

Lars,
No person has the time to responded to everything Ron says – that’s not being a troll – that’s just someone not wanting to waste time on people willing to act the way described. Someone that is more interested in doing his job – than pushing his agenda. BTW, you seem to think that this series provides those with an attempt to have me explain any & all problems that they have with NASA. As I’ve said before – it’s an opportunity for folks like Ron to explain themselves.

Also, you apparently didn’t read the Op-Ed – at all. If you had? You’d realize that what Ron is doing is detailed in the “Downward Spiral” tactic described.

If you had read Ron & my conversation Sunday night? You’d have seen, I have, in fact responded to Ron’s comments. Today however, after seeing him rant for three days – I opted to stop wasting time. Why? Because he said I said something – that I didn’t – that’s called lying. That’s not me avoiding the supposed “truth” – that’s me avoiding a liar.

Some might call where someone posts a snarky comment about something they didn’t adequately look into as troll behavior as well. Again, it appears that, for certain people, they want nothing more than to make those that disagree with them look as bad as they do. Take a good, long look at what you’re defending – what does that say about these people & by extension – you?

Lars,
I’m not bitter – I’m tired. Imagine that you’re trying to have an adult conversation & rather than doing that, folks employed the tactics described. Some have suggested that we should continue to invest time on people who behave this way – the question is why? I’m sorry that you can’t see how having to deal with this type of behavior would become very tiring – very soon.
I can’t believe that their are actually people who work so hard to defend this type of behavior.
Moreover, Ron flat out lied, stating that I said something – that I didn’t, claiming that I, in fact, supported his point of view. I’m not sure if you enjoy being lied to or not, but that’s the person who you’re defending.
I will grant you this, after Ron has flooded AS’ chat board over the past three days – he has managed to provoke me. It’s ironic, he says he isn’t a troll – but that is exactly what a troll is trying to accomplish.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

@Karol, If I remember correctly you are talking about loans, which Musk has/is paying back. In any event, at issue is leveraging the private sector, not becoming fundamentalistic about free enterprize.
Regards,
Conrad Steenkamp

“If I remember correctly you are talking about loans, which Musk has/is paying back.”

That’s for Tesla, not SpaceX. SpaceX has taken no government loans, and receives no subsidies.

Although once the Air Force qualifies SpaceX for for launching DoD/NRO payloads, they might qualify for some or all of the $1B subsidy that ULA (i.e. Boeing and Lockheed Martin) current receives.

That’s going to be an interesting political discussion, since why should ULA receive a subsidy when they should just be raising their prices to cover their revenue needs – they are a monopoly after all…

Ron,
Yet again – Musk testified that (according to his numbers) some 90 percent of the funds for their commercial development – from taxpayers. Not sure if you’re being intentionally misleading or just unaware of the facts.

All,
First, I wanted to thank Noel, Ken, Conrad & even Ron. Because, I really expected this series to cause the behavior we want to stop. In that regard I failed – it appears that, instead, most comments have been respectful. While many of you might not like having this behavior detailed & highlighted – you’ve at least discussed the issue with some respect. Thank you.

That was the reason behind this whole series. We get bombarded with the tactics you see on a near-daily basis. I wanted to have a tool that would allow me, when people behave this way, to not ignore them but also not to waste time on people who mistakenly believe this is acceptable. From now on, when someone employs one of the tactics described? The response will be a link to the relevant tactic & a statement that we don’t respond to that sort of behavior.

Some have expressed concern that we’re stooping to their level & others simply don’t want these actions documented (because it makes NewSpace look bad). Given the response we’ve received from a good many within the space community – we feel this series highlights a severe issue that NewSpace needs to own up to if they’re going to be the movement we need them to be. AmericaSpace strongly supports commercial access to orbit & hopes that the funding to NASA’s commercial efforts will soon be restored.

“In that regard I failed – it appears that, instead, most comments have been respectful.”

Maybe your initial assumptions were incorrect.

“We get bombarded with the tactics you see on a near-daily basis.”

Maybe you don’t realize it, but only people that are passionate about space are going to respond to anything written about space in any media, including your small publication. And passionate people can be, well, passionate. It’s just human nature. You show lots of passion in what you write, should we be blaming you about that?

And I don’t know if you have noticed this, but there is no consensus within the space community on what we should do next.

For instance, you have stated that we should end the ISS, but others think it provides value. Some think we should return to the Moon, while others think we should push on. Even for those that want to push on, and leave the Moon for individuals and companies to explore/exploit, there is no consensus on what is next – an asteroid to prove out our spacefaring ability, or just push on to Mars?

And this is all way before we start talking about the companies involved, large or small.

So while you are obsessed with finding and rooting out “NewSpace”, to use a metaphor, you are fiddling while Rome is burning. The U.S. public as a whole doesn’t share our passion for space, and Congress doesn’t give NASA enough money to do 50% of what any of us want (right away in any case).

You look silly trying to define the undefinable. How you define “NewSpace” is different than how everyone else defines it. And how do you define someone that supports SpaceX but also supports Boeing? You have too many conflicting definitions going on, and in some ways you are being overly irrational.

And still you use the term “NewSpace” as a pejorative, despite protestations that you do admire some of the accomplishments of “NewSpace” companies (whatever those are).

This has been an interesting view into a segment of the space community, but I didn’t see anything solved here. You can point people to other webpages all you want for “proof” that they are behaving badly, but if they don’t think they are behaving badly, they aren’t going to go read your “proof”.

What I do, on balance, is try to spend most of my time proposing what I think would be the better future for space exploration, and spend as little time as possible on correcting bad information. Some days that works, some days it doesn’t, but it’s just my way of pushing this wet noodle forward.

Your attempt to bring the space community together and prevent further fracturing is appreciated. I see (not only in this arena but in so many others these days) there are agitators with an agenda that is bent on dividing people into camps, never allowing for or finding common ground (though they will plead that they do), constantly bullying and insulting, thus keeping things at an impasse – actually hindering any attempts toward cohesion. Many thanks for your courage and conviction in standing up for and working to unite the community and move forward. Some do not want that.

Ron,
Wow – you’ve been busy today trying to shout down everyone that disagrees with you – haven’t you?

Also, you state one thing in one comment & something different in something else. You state the public is savvy about space in one post – and ignorant of it in another.

You try to make this as an attempt to divide the space community. If you had read some of my earlier comments – you’d find that I’ve used the term “NowSpace” in the past – this is a combination of the new & old camps. I can’t imagine what we’d be able to accomplish if we had the experience of the old – with the drive of the new. So, while you might think that I support one side or the other – the problem is – I support BOTH. However, I don’t support people who behave this way.

Having said that, what does it say about the side you’ve selected when they act the way described. Face it Ron, the problem you have and are trying to cover up or keep quiet – is that some NewSpacers have not let up on this type of behavior even after NASA started to support them.

As to how what I’ve been doing to bring the space community together. I want both sides to treat one another civilly. Rather than acknowledge the behavior described & work to put a stop to it – you defend it. You’ve posted distortions & in at least one case a flat-out lie. I’m really sorry that being called on this bothers you so much. However (and yet again) you should probably invest as much time in building bridges as you have responding to those highlighting points you dislike.

You made statements about how this is driving people away from AmericaSpace. We hope so! We don’t want people who act this way coming here. We want people to act like adults – not those who spend hours trying to bullying others & cow them into silence. We want people to treat each other with courtesy & respect. When you get right down to it – you’ve been spending all this time fighting against this concept. You’ve essentially been saying we should be happy to tolerate this sort of nonsense from people who should know better.

Anne,
Thank you. Never, in my wildest dreams, did I imagine that people would come out in defending this type of behavior.

They might get what they want – but not in the manner they expect. I think the cuts imposed by sequestration could be just the start. By acting this way, these folks are burning bridges. They’re hurting themselves. No one wants to deal with people who act this way. They don’t understand this simple fact. When things really start to turn against them they will say it’s everyone else’s fault – & not their own.

So, pointing out how self-destructive this behavior is “silly?” I’m not rooting anything out – I’m trying to get these people to act like adults – something you have issues with apparently. By all means, keep acting this way. It’s only conflicting to you – because it makes the folks described look bad. You think Sequestration was a blow? The actions you defend are costing NewSpace valuable allies – so, by all means, keep it up.

I find it funny that someone who will switch their opinions (one minute your for staying in LEO, the next against) on a dime will try to get me to nail down facts for them.

As to what I like about NewSpace. It’s called being an adult. I do respect the companies that have accomplished something. What I don’t like is this behavior. Just because I like the concept of NewSpace doesn’t mean we should have to tolerate their immature antics.

What you’ve said here amounts to two things: 1). You attempt to make me look bad for highlighting a problem. 2). Muddying the waters.

Ron, it’s easy to define a NewSpace troll. The overall definition is in part one of this series. Specifically, these people’s actions serve to cover for problems within the community, to change the subject, to silence, to bully.

The one thing I got from your numerous posts is that you believe I’m painting the movement with too broad a brush. The truth is, there are good & bad people everywhere. However, the majority of the behavior I describe – is being done by supporters of NewSpace. I want them to succeed but I also know that if they’re acting this way – it’s a sign of a larger problem.

Sorry Ron, I’m not going to carry water for people who act this way nor will I cover for them.

I’d like to say that I’m stunned you would invest so much time trying to make these type of actions seem acceptable, but knowing you’re willing to flat out lie? I guess I shouldn’t be. BTW, why is it you didn’t address the fact that you lied in all of your subsequent posts?

All,
Several of you have stated that this Op-Eds purpose was to “stifle opposing points of view” – it isn’t. It’s about stifling unacceptable behavior. Not agreeing with someone is one thing – but if you have to resort to the tactics described here – you’ve already lost the debate.

We want a spirited, aggressive debate.

We want a strong, vibrant space industry.

The tactics described – in no way reflect these two things. They stifle debate & confuse the conversation. Also, & more damaging, they reflect poorly on those companies that NewSpacers support. This damages their reputation. Ad Hominem attacks, lies, distorting the truth, spam & cyber attacks? Ask yourself – does this, in any way, resemble the actions of a mature & responsible group?

Moreover, not everyone in NewSpace is guilty of these actions. However, when it comes to these tactics – a majority of them are conducted by NewSpacers & this makes the entire community look bad. We need commercial space efforts, by behaving this way, few will take them seriously & fewer still will want to have anything to do with them.

Ron,
This isn’t about what I do or don’t think. What you appear to be trying to turn into something else is that a person or company’s reputation is a very precious commodity. By acting the way described (BTW – when did I mention SpaceX & reputation?) these people are only hurting what they support. I know you can’t see it, but by detailing these issues and asking for change – I’m actually trying to help.

I find it funny that you could mention positive enthusiasm – after what was detailed in this series. If that’s your view of a good thing – you have some issues you might want to address.

Also, so, you state Sunday that you want us to remain in LEO to “live & work in Space” & now all of a sudden your pro exploration?

Again Ron, how many times have I said that I support commercial space? Why is that you’re ignoring that?

Hi Simon,
It wasn’t dreadful – it just had completely, absolutely, totally nothing to do what was being discussed. Actually – it didn’t rankle, I wanted to thank you for providing an example as to how not to act. It’s the type of snark that your “unbearable” comment highlights. It’s not unbearable – it’s only hurting your movements objectives.
Sincerely and with much thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

All,
Thanks, this article has done exactly what I wanted. It’s highlighted these issues & provided an opportunity for NewSpace fans to address them.

The only question I have is, if you’re so much smarter, hipper & better – why is it you’re funding getting cut? Maybe, just maybe, you should spend less time insulting those that highlight the attitudes described, making enemies & insulting the agency that’s been funneling money your way – and a bit more building bridges. I know, that’s a foreign concept to some of you – but go crazy, give it a try!

During the recent academy awards, one of the show’s presenters said something patently offensive about a little six-year-old girl. A satire organization (the Onion) called the little girl the “c” word. I hate to break it to those of you laughing & defending this sort of thing – but many view the tactics described herein with as much fondness as how they viewed how this little girl was treated. One of the things that NewSpacers have demanded is that I address every thing they say, that I “show them” them proof for everything, even basic knowledge. Here is where I oblige you. As some have said, this problem is rampant – but it should not be coming from people who are supposedly working for a brighter future. Below is a link to the story in question – this is how those of us that were raised using out-moded concepts such as manners, respect & common courtesy view the behavior described in this series:

On a final note, some of you, despite what this series has been written about, have posted numbers showing who gets how much funding. Have you ever stopped to consider that your funding issues might be related to your attitude problem? You get more flies with sugar than with vinegar. That’s one of the key points raised. Contrary to Ron, this isn’t a “I hate NewSpace” rant – it’s a “We want you to join the club – but we only accept adults” rant.

Joe2,
Can you believe how low he’s willing to stoop? Wow. I mean, he’s the “Troll” poster boy. He’s lied, warped the facts, twisted my words and now this. How messed up do you have to be to think, “Be nice” means “Bribery?”
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

I didn’t know low Coastal Ron would stoop until that very last post. I think anyone reading his comments here or on other websites can no longer take anything he might say seriously. The dude has lost any credibility he might have had given that comment.

Joe2,
He lost all credibility when he stated that I supported his contention that SLS had no purpose. I spent (wasted obviously) Sunday talking to him about its uses. He’s proven to be dishonest and only seems interested in provoking people. He’s used every tactic contained in this series. You would think that someone as smart as he thinks he is would at least have the good sense not to prove my point for me.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

“Anyone who glances on the amount (& length of time) that elapses between SLS missions will see that the agency is taking its time. This is, more than likely, conducted for financial reasons. I believe NASA is hedging their bets in the hopes that, after they prove the viability of SLS/Orion – that funding will be increased.”

That was in response to my question about why there were no funded missions for the SLS.

From what you said, you are saying that NASA hasn’t gotten around to getting funding for any SLS mission. Until that happens, the SLS serves no purpose.

Oh sure, you can hope it serves a purpose. But show me a customer for the SLS after it becomes operational. Who needs it?

You are also implying, and confirming, that they SLS won’t have a mission waiting for it as soon as it becomes operational, and that it will sit – for years – waiting for a mission.

That’s pretty much the situation right now anyways, the elephant in the room so to speak, because Congress isn’t going to be increasing NASA’s budget, and there is no room in the budget for SLS-sized missions.

Plus, the President didn’t want the SLS, so he is not going to be going out on a limb to increase NASA’s budget, and he certainly won’t be volunteering up any of his favorite programs to be cancelled to make way for SLS missions.

So the situation is pretty clear – the President isn’t suggesting any uses for the SLS, Congress isn’t asking NASA for any suggestions nor is it providing any funding, and there are no customers advocating for it.

Does anyone see this as a formula for success?

Can anyone point to a known need for the SLS?

Anyone with a rational viewpoint on this would see the disconnect here, and without a customer advocating for it’s use, the handwriting is pretty clear – the SLS won’t last much longer, it’s just a matter of how much money it will waste before it’s canceled.

And the way the MPCV is going, being severely over-weight and all, it may not be too far behind. I’d rather we cancel it and go directly to the Nautilus-X, which is a true spaceship. Time will tell…

Yes, but that doesn’t say “SLS has no purpose.” That says – I believe NASA is slow-rolling SLS so that the program doesn’t get cancelled and the agency’s exploration programs can move forward. At best you’re putting words in my mouth, at worse you’re lying. This isn’t the People’s Court where you can prove something by twisting my words or trying to interpret them into something they aren’t. Why don’t you try & reclaim that ground you lost? Why don’t you say, okay, I see what you’re saying there & apologize for misrepresenting what you said? Maybe you’re not doing it intentionally and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you’ve shown anything in the last few days it’s a complete unwillingness to admit when you’re wrong.

NASA needs it to conduct deep space exploration. Your confused, you still are incapable of seeing the difference between a company and government. I’m sorry, I don’t want to waste more time explaining this concept. .

A known need for SLS – Moon, asteroid Mars.

So, anyone that disagrees with you is irrational? Ron, some would say locking us in Leo for an indefinite period of time just to bankroll you favorite companies as being irrational. That’s the whole point. It’s okay for us to disagree – but you need to be civil when doing it. Just because someone disagrees with you – doesn’t give you carte blanche to treat them like a moron. When you act like only your opinions have value, use condescending language and act as everyone else is just too stupid to understand your brilliance – you’re not winning anything. You’re just alienating people. Me highlighting these issues isn’t the problem Ron – the behavior is.

You make it sound like what the president “wants” – is a good thing. Sorry, as I told you earlier I couldn’t care less what he thinks. In fact, this might shock you – but some people didn’t vote for him. I personally oppose his agenda and don’t care what he’s made clear. Congress has made clear that they’re not having it.

Ron, I’m not trying to be insulting – but you have a serious problem. You try to read things into what was said – that just aren’t there. You did this again when I stated “you get more flies with honey than vinegar” – you actually thought I meant bribery!

Besides the fact that you have lied, twisted the facts and what others have said, I think the worse thing you’ve done is act like yours is the only opinion of consequence. If someone posts anything that contradicts your point of view – you immediately have to issue a rebuttal. Just accept the fact that folks aren’t always going to agree.

Ron, I get it, you only want commercial space to exist and want NASA to go away. Good for you. However, some people actually like NASA, we respect the agencies achievements and don’t appreciate watching as NASA forks over cash to people who behave this way.

Ron,
If by others you mean NASA – then you’re right. I attended a briefing in the LCC at Kennedy regarding the future of human spaceflight about two weeks ago – it’s on NASA’s website as well as on AmericaSpace. NASA officials Dan Dumbacher, Mark Geyer, Todd May & Pepper Phillips said that SLS was for exploration, this fact was reiterated at a recent Space Day event I attended by Trent Smith. The only people contesting this is folks such as yourself. In fact, even that you know that SLS does have a mission – you state otherwise. So much for your “unsupported assumption” nonsense. What you really mean by “unsupported assumption” is – “something I don’t like.” That’s the problem when you just skim & cherry-pick your information – you get holes in your philosophy. Although, how any alleged space enthusiast could miss something so large, is surprising – unless they were doing so intentionally.

As to affordability, you know & I know that we each can show the other numbers backing our statements.

Ron, what comment thread are you posting on? That’s right! On the: “NewSpace Troll…” so guess what? That actually is what this conversation is about. So, not sure what your point there is…

Ron, when you address points, I actually do try to address them – even if, as in the case here, they’re off topic. Rather than take a hard look at your behavior – you try to make those highlighting this issue as doing so to hurt your pet causes. That’s low Ron. Especially when I’ve stated repeatedly the following: I support commercial access to LEO as NASA handles BEO.

How about the reality you’re ignoring? What if the reports we’re hearing that the international partners want to pull out of ISS to focus on exploration efforts. What if the station will be deorbited in 2020. That’d mean we were squandering money on craft that will be going to a destination that no longer exists. But that’s all well & good just so the companies you have personally deemed as worthy, those projects that Ron thinks is best get bankrolled.

People like me? I’ve already tried to explain to you a thousand times that I support commercial efforts. You ignore the facts about SLS & then rail about the cost. The projections I’ve seen show that while yes, we won’t be flying to the Moon every week – we can conduct some real exploration for a change. You want to turn this into an “SLS vs. ISS” war. I’m not going to take the bait. Ron – you’re the sole person who has made the claim that this is about SLS vs ISS. You support NewSpace – good for you. Excluding SpaceX – NewSpace hasn’t done too much & now that times are tight – the tap is being cut off. Maybe, if you weren’t so busy insulting “people like me” & were instead working to build positive relationships this wouldn’t be happening. However, you’re not.

Ron, I too worked in management, as well as law enforcement & the military. If you think that politics aren’t involved in how some contracts are doled out? You’re kidding yourself. If you honk off enough senators – your company won’t get contracts.

Ron, if you think we’re the only ones who have noticed this? You’re sorely mistaken. We’re just the only one that is willing to talk about it.

Oh God, yes Ron that’s exactly what I was saying! Bribe people (that was sarcasm). How morally bankrupt do you have to be to take a statement such as: “Stop acting like a bunch of jerks & treat people with respect when speaking to them” – into a comment about bribery? Jeez, why am I bothering to explain to you a basic concept such as common courtesy. I hate to be rude – but after TWO DAYS worth of me stating the same thing over & over again – it takes a spectacular idiot to turn my statements into bribery.

Yes, they have signed a lot of contracts. I contend how they amassed this is by behaving more like established companies. I’m sure you disagree.

This too I agree with you on. Nothing either of us says will change anything on the hill.

Ron, you lied, distorted the truth, turned a statement such as “be nice” into “bribery” – I think it’s safe to say your attitude is fairly messed up.

Ferris,
Generally, I define NewSpace as companies that are about 13 years old, were formed as small start up & still have yet to develop a proven track record. SpaceX is starting to exit this “box” with every flight. I hope this makes sense. I understand that some might not agree with my comments & feel I’m trying to generalize. This is far from perfect I know.
As to how other companies aren’t NewSpace. They’ve been established for years & are not trying to enter the market. In fact, they dominate it. NewSpacers are those companies that are trying to carve a niche for themselves. The type of behavior described is, I feel, counter productive & self destructive.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Would you accept that other people won’t agree with that definition, and would have fundamental disagreements with that characteristic list? And that this might explain who and why some companies you don’t include in a NewSpace list other people do? Rather than “padding their resume”?

Ferris,
Yes I would. However, while I’m willing to concede some points in this regard, in no way does ULA fit the MewSpace mold. Boeing & Lock Mart are at the very cornerstone of “OldSpace.” Moreover, the reps I’ve spoken to laugh when I tell them that some have tried to include them in the NewSpace group.

Ferris, thank you. Even though I know, you disagree with me about many things – you appear to be listening to what I’m trying to say – and I deeply appreciate that. I don’t think I’ve said this before, but handling dissent the way you have – means I’m far more likely to listen & consider what you’re saying. I don’t have all the answers. I’m not always right, you’re not always wrong – but that doesn’t mean we have to tear each other down. Again, my thanks.
Sincerely & with thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericSpace

2 points – First, I am sorry, but I don’t agree that there is “no way does ULA fit the [NewSpace] mold”. But more to the point, I am not asking you to agree with me, but to accept that I do view them as NewSpace, and that isn’t wrong.

Second – Have you (and AmericaSpace at large) ever considered that the troll street might not be 1 way?

I made an observation I’d like to share that expands on Andrews last comment.

Essays are great for the main article, but can be a problem in comments. It leads to two things. Either a point by point fisk which becomes twice the size of the original comment or picking a point to respond to and being accused of ignoring other parts of the comment.

The solution is shorter comments and cutting each other some slack. Don’t assume a comment is a personal attack (even if it is, ignore it) and concentrate on advancing the argument by substantive discussion of the facts.

I know we all think we do that, but we all fall short (passion has both positive and negative consequences, but I’d rather we run the risk than not have it.)

I personally enjoy a vigorous debate even when it requires much separation of the wheat from the chaff. Just let the occasional insult slide off your back. I mean, most insult are more funny that true.

Bingo. I’d rather not respond to each & every post – if I don’t (& yes, if those debating with us don’t respond as well) the urge is to say that they aren’t responding because they’ve been caught in some “gotcha.” Moreover, we know that responding in the manner we have is not how the media are expected to handle this. However, we feel that part of the problem is that folks have ignored this for a while & it’s starting to get out of hand (see the link to the CNN article about the “c” word).

We want a vibrant space community & feel that this type of behavior is counterproductive & even self-destructive.

You’re not trying to help anyone – you’re trying to talk down to them, to show them how much smarter you think you are than them.

This is called imputing motives and is a very dangerous thing. Jason, it is obvious you work hard to make a place that attracts people like me, but you’ve got to allow people to expose your blind spots (which we all have.)

I’ve been reading Ron’s post through the filter of your responses and things just aren’t lining up. I’ve been learning things from Ron that you haven’t been. That should stop and make you think.

Guess what, everybody is smarter than me in some areas which doesn’t mean they talk down to me (even if I definitely get that vibe. I’ve got a 160 IQ and read everything. You have no idea how often I’ve had to grin and bear it when somebody tries to explain to me something I already know. I’m sure it happens to you as well.) It means an opportunity to learn. So learn and quit being offended.

I don’t know Ron that well, but he’s a good guy, just like you. I’d give you both a time out, but you’re both too old for that.

Ken,
Sure, again, I try not to get mad when people disagree with me (Ferris & I disagree all the time). It’s not what you say – it’s how you say it. Look at how Ferris, Noel, AWOE & others act – then compare that to Ron.

Ron thought my statement:”You get more flies with honey than vinegar” – meant bribery. He lied, stating I said something I never did. Lastly? When I phrased things the way he did – he flipped his top. Given this type of behavior, I strongly disagree that anything he has to say has any value at all.

Ken, look at my comments to Ferris, that’s all I can say. He strongly disagrees with me, but he has refrained from using the behavior Ron uses. Ron might have solid points – but when he couches them the way he does? Who wants to listen?

Prove me wrong. I’ll concede & try again to open a dialogue with him – if you can find these two things: 1). Ever agreed to anything I had to say. 2). Conceded a point. Ken, when you don’t do these things? You’re not helping. What he is doing isn’t talking to someone – it’s talking “at” someone. You seem like a good guy, but Ron has spent four days shouting down any & everyone that disagrees with him. I fail to see how that’s “helpful.” Sorry Ken, but maybe you should give Ron a few pointers about how to talk to people. Lying? Twisting an innocent, well intentioned, comment into something else? That’s exactly the type of behavior I’ve been talking about.

It’s a simple concept Ken, Treat those as you want to be treated. Ron might be a genius, however, by acting like he has been? It just gets lost in the attitude. I’m happy to have a conversation with anyone, but I expect them to act like adults.
Sincerely and with much thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

BTW (see I’m just like a kid, unable to stay on timeout) in a general sense your point about trolls is valid (I don’t think I’ve acknowledge that as I should have.) I think it absolutely does hurt the case for some.

The problem is defining newspace and sticking some round pegs in that square hole. It’s not really productive. It’s obvious that newspace does not have a rigorous enough definition to avoid the squabbles it produces.

Look at your own definition. Doesn’t ’13 years’ kind of jump out at you as arbitrary?

Ken,
Yup. He doesn’t want to talk – he wants to provoke. That’s how he gets his jollies. I figured out his game when I made comments virtually identical to his own (only the nouns were changed) – and he got ticked off, referring to his own words as “hostile.” What more do I need to say? He proved my point for me.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Ken,
I disagree with you slightly. Ron doesn’t want a conversation, he wants to bully others into parroting his beliefs. In his mind agreeing with someone, conceding some point, being a bigger man & showing some humility – makes you a sycophant (his words were “admiration society”). Basically Ron has done everything possible to ignore one simple concept we learned as children: Treat those as you want to be treated.

I was curious if he’d find his own language as offensive as others do. So, I ran a little experiment. He made a comment: “Kill SLS” – I turned that into – “Kill commercial.” He referred to what I had been saying as “space fantasies” – I turned that into “NewSpace fantasies.” How he reacted basically made my argument for me. He blew his stack & called what I was saying as “hostile.” Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along? That’s what this four day “conversation” was all about. This type of behavior is offensive, he was offended by his own words were they were turned back on him. What else is their to say?

Ken,
Done wasting time with Ron & conversations about him. I went over what he did & didn’t do repeatedly & I’m not going to do it again. If you want to see what I’m talking about – review my earlier comments.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Ken,
I agree. That too serves a purpose. We concede that not every single thing that we utter is perfect. I think it’s rather telling that Ron neither admits he can ever be wrong nor agrees with anyone other than himself. That pretty much says it all. I wanted to keep it to 2000 & up, but yes it can be viewed as arbitrary. That’s the point Ken. I’m able to admit I’m not perfect. Moreover, I knew from the outset people would try to argue on semantics.
Sincerely & with thanks, Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace

Now you’re just fishing for complements. 😉 because I’ve already mentioned that you have some of those qualities that I admire.

In figuring out Ron and testing him to confirm what you’ve figured out, you’ve put him in a box. I see him making efforts. If I were Ron I’d apologize for giving offense which is not an admission that he was totally wrong or even as troll. Pick any of his comments and I’m certain I can prove to your satisfaction it is not the comment of a troll. I hope you serious do take me up on that challenge.

People argue all sorts of ways. My ex-wife remembers us as never fighting. I can’t remember a day in our marriage when we didn’t fight. We’re much better friends now that we’re divorced and living in different states!

Ken,
I’m not trying to fish for compliments. After things got as bad as they did, I was trying to be overly polite to settle things down. There’s a difference.
Ken, I reference several of Ron’s comments that were troll-worthy. Read my request to Ron that we start over. Also, Ron asked me to review his Mar. 13, 10:29 pm comment – which is precisely what my reply to him was. A review of his comments. I’ve heard this from others that you should “parse” what one says to interpret it the best way. Rather, I suggest, people just try to make things a little more polite so that folks won’t have to parse.
Thanks Ken, but in the case of the “new” & “old” argument? I don’t think we can divorce the two sides. Give what Ferris states, what probably is needed is a “shotgun marriage.”
Sincerely, Jason

In short:
1. The Troll debate was not good for this news service and contributed little of value to the debate. Unfortunate but, I think, true.
2. That you should grant your opponents in the debate the Right of Reply in the form of a proper article written by one of them. Perhaps you could make suggestions in this regard.
3. That the objective of the discussion would be to add value to the joint objective of getting humans into space on a sustainable basis. i.e. develop commonalities as opposed to polarise.
4. That this discussion should ideally be facilitated by a neutral third party, rather than yourself.

That way one might have a better chance of getting something of value out of this debate.

Conrad,
1. The only negative impact appears to be from the type of people highlighted. I’m still getting “thank yous” for posting it.
2. Already on that. Ferris Valyn broached the idea to me & I’m all for it. In fact, I’d like him to pen most of it.
3. Conrad, if the type of people that get out of LEO think this sort of behavior is acceptable – then maybe we should stay where we are.
4. Given that the “other” party is willing to employ these tactics & writes volumes of rants. I find it amusing that three little articles that strive to provide a counter-point are so problematic. Everyone’s opinions should be considered – their’s, your’s & mine.

I find the word value is used a bit. It seems that proponents of this sort of behavior only value a discussion they can win. Being able to handle criticism isn’t valuable – it’s invaluable. We’re happy to provide the other side a voice. In other words – both sides need to be heard.

If you are throwing open the debate, good, and I hope that the person you selected is the right choice.

Regarding value added/damage, let me be clear: you may well have received approving emails, which is easy enough to achieve in any polarised debate. Yet, the way the debate unfolded and the degree of bullying tactics involved, had to stick in the craw of many people. Scratch a bit and you will find a wide range of opinions on the part of the silent majority here.

It is more difficult to get grudging respect from all participants in a debate – even more so to develop common ground between these. I wish you luck with the next phase.

Conrad,
I think he is the best person. He’s willing to consider other people’s points of view – but is still passionate about it. Ferris might have me write it all – but he’s going to review it so that the elements that pertain to his side are correct.

As to me bullying, you might be correct. Here’s the thing, even though I gave what I was given? – I should have just let the Op-Eds stand as they were. BTW – I think you’ll find that the “new” side – isn’t the majority. From what I’ve seen? Both sides are fairly even (numerically). The “Old” side has been forced into silence by the current administration’s appointees. I’ve been able to post a couple of “anonymous-ized” emails – but there were a ton of folks that flat refused. There are thousands of angry ex-space employees out there who’re less than pleased at how those involved with these efforts are behaving. I just wanted to give a voice to that.

This is an interesting subject you have brought up. In addition to defining what “NewSpace” is, it would be very educational to define who everyone else is.

I don’t know if “OldSpace” is everybody that isn’t “NewSpace”, but certainly there are lots of people out there that identify as “OldSpace”. But what do “OldSpace” supporters believe? What are the things they have in common with “NewSpace”, and what’s different?

If you’re going to discussion about what defines “NewSpace”, why not do one on “OldSpace” too?

Ron,
During the course of the opinion-piece this will probably be stated: “Inversely, does this mean that the opposite of this is “OldSpace?” We will detail what both of these concepts mean to different people & compare the two.
Jason Rhian – Editor, AmericaSpace